On Aug 16, 2007, at 15:22, Randy J. Read wrote:
Raw images are probably even harder to simulate convincingly.
If i was to fabricate a structure, I would get first 'Fobs', then
expand, then get the images
(I am sure one can hack 'strategy' or 'predict' or even 'mosflm' to
tell you in which image every reflection is)
and then add noise in the images themselves. The process the images
and go on from there ;-)
The thing that is certainly stopping me is that its much more
difficult to do that, than solving the structure ...
but it would admittedly be quite some fun doing it right if one would
ignore the tiny issue of the ethical side of such activity.
About archiving images, I have a feeling that the cost per Gb is the
same as it was for structure factors in early 90's.
Last but not least, some EDS data mining we did here, agrees with
Randy: very very few other structures, if any, appear to have
really strange statistics in the subset of the PDB with structure
factors (aka EDS...). That is a relief.
As for the Nature debate, I am only disappointed and confused by one
thing: Randy et al, ask for the images, like
one can ask for the dated logbook, in any other scientific
discipline. For me that qualifies only two reactions from the group
of Murthy:
1. Make the images available and demand a public apology for spoiling
their name.
2. Shut up, retract the paper, buy property in Alaska and disappear.
The mumbo jumbo of the reply is so tragically irrelevant that I fail
to understand how Nature tolerated it.
Tassos
PS the algorithm for the calculation of the sigmas (assuming they
were calculated) does not look that naive actually.
Far from a simple linear relationship. They put some thought on it,
but lets say that if you want to apply a 2D function
to simulate noise, don't do it along the principle axes ;-)
