On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:33:30 +0200, Bernhard Rupp <hofkristall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[There is] a distinction between indicators of the precision of merged data, >>and those for the precision of unmerged data. > >Let's take a step back - definitions matter: > >(i) We have multiple observations of the same, already integrated h: the >'unmerged' data <- most important data set which SHOULD BE deposited and >rarely is. yes, fully agree. >(ii) Now we weighted average those multiple instances of the same h, sans >symmetry: 'merged' data <- still useful to keep, particularly if one gets the >metric symmetry/PG wrong >(iii) Now we merge symmetry related data (generally keeping Friedels apart): >'unique' data >(iv) both (ii) and (iii) are instances of 'merged' data. I don't quite understand the difference between (ii) and (iii). As soon as you take the weighted average, you merge the data, because you create one single estimate of the intensity I (and sigma(I)) of a unique reflection from several symmetry-related observations of that unique reflection. So, to me, 'taking the weighted average' and 'merging' are different words for the same procedure. best, Kay > >Is that correct? If so, let’s continue the thread (there is more to come...) >or adjust the definitions. > >Best, BR
