content_image/334920.jpg
moment exponent would be 53 / 64 = 0 . 828125 and 53 / 32 = 1 . 65625 for the second moment, slightly below the lower bound of the estimate intervals. Choosing λ$_{1}$ = − 2 / 3 would give exponents 5 / 6 = 0 . 8333 . . . and 5 / 3 = 1 . 666 . . . respectively, slightly above the upper bound of the intervals. Let us suggest, as an example, that λ$_{0}$ = 6 . 8, λ$_{1}$ = − 2 / 3, λ$_{2}$ = − 6 and λ$_{3}$ = 0 in the expression (109). In figure 14 the curve use these parameters for z at K ∗ , i.e. z = 6 . 8 − (2 / 3) log n − 6 log log n . Will the points eventually converge to the curve? It would take considerably larger lattices to shed any light on this. We also have the problem what λ$_{0}$ should be. Using λ$_{0}$ = 6 . 8 means that the coefficient in (109) is about 0 . 393. Comparing the measured σ$_{2}$ with n 5 / 3 gives a factor of roughly 0 . 16 though the data are certainly far from conclusive. Since the distribution fit is not perfect a different constant is perhaps to be expected. Also, slow convergence is to be expected here. 

<img src='content_image/334920.jpg'>

The right plot of figure 14 shows y versus z for K > K ∗ . Note the peculiar backwards movement of z getting more and more pronounced for larger L . The curves for 16, 32 and 64 show signs of approaching some limit curve. We don’t have data for very low temperatures for the smaller lattices though, except for L = 4. The plots in figure 15 shows y and z versus K for K > K ∗ . The red lines show location of K$_{c}$ ≈ 0 . 2216546, found in $^{12}$, but see also20 for a theoretical estimate of K$_{c}$ . 

