deletions | additions       diff --git a/The_error_in_our_analysis__.tex b/The_error_in_our_analysis__.tex  index 6642b91..dbe0406 100644  --- a/The_error_in_our_analysis__.tex  +++ b/The_error_in_our_analysis__.tex 
...
The %The  error in our analysis most likely arises from systematic instrumental  error because our data is very accurate, but not fully precise. To obtain the values for both Shot and Johnson Noise, we averaged 100 readings from the multi-meter. We are sure that this decreased our precision error significantly, but there is still error. Because %Because  we were very precise with our measurements and analysis, systematic instrumental  error seems to be the source of error. This could arise from the resistors not being exactly what the Noise Fundaments express they are and there could be extra noise from one of the detectors. Because we had such small error, I believe that that error can not be lowered because we were so precise and the error is so low. Unfortunately, %Unfortunately,  we ourselves were not accurate scientists and did not perform any error trials. We have no error recorded for any of our data other than $1 \Omega$ values in the Johnson Noise experiment. We wish we had more time in order to go back, take error measurements, and calculate the true error in our data. This is why our graphs for both Johnson Noise and Shot Noise lack error bars and we could not determine a $\chi$ squared.