$^{GLYPH<Minus>}$4 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$2 0 2 4 a 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 First cumulant $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$2 2 4 a 0.05 0.10 0.15 Second cumulant $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$2 2 4 a $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.05 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.04 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.03 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.02 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.01 0.01 0.02 Third cumulant $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$2 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$1 1 2 3 4 5 a $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.02 $^{GLYPH<Minus>}$0.01 0.01 0.02 Fourth cumulant FIG. 22: Normalised first (left) and second (right) cumulants for the L × L × L × L × L -lattice, L = 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 16 , 20 , 24 (blue) versus a for z = − 9 . 87 together with the limit curve (red). FIG. 23: Normalised third (left) and fourth (right) cumulants for the L × L × L × L × L -lattice, L = 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 16 , 20 , 24 (blue) versus a for z = − 9 . 87 together with the limit curve (red). denote by a$_{min}$ ( z ) and a$_{max}$ ( z ) the location of the minimum and maximum fourth cumulant. For z = − 9 . 87 we have a$_{min}$ ≈ 1 . 06965 and a$_{max}$ ≈ 2 . 51275. A simple scaling projection gives that roughly K$_{max}$ ( L ) ≈ K$_{c}$ + 0 . 22 /L 5 / 2 and K$_{max}$ ( L ) − K$_{min}$ ( L ) ≈ 0 . 093 /L 5 / $^{2}$. Also K$_{c}$ ≈ 0 . 113915, see $^{24}$. Thus, in principle at least, the rescaling between a and K is However, this kind of expression is somewhat too simplistic to get figure 23. It would take higher-order corrections to scaling to produce it but this would probably take a more involved numerical study of the 5D-model. Other investigations of the 5D-lattice includes e.g. $^{11}$,25 and $^{24}$. K ( a ) ∼ K$_{max}$ ( L ) − K$_{min}$ ( L ) a$_{max}$ ( z ) a$_{min}$ ( z ) ( a − a$_{max}$ ( z )) + K$_{max}$ ( L ) (153) 48