Where is it written that compactness of representation and
accuracy/precision are the same thing? Is 1/3 more or less precise than
0.333 ?
If mmCIF were a binary floating-point format file, there would be more
"decimal places" in the precision of the stored value for the unit cell,
despite fitting into only 4 bytes instead of the 13 bytes of text some
seem offended to see below. Would that be better? Or worse?
-James Holton
MAD Scientist
On 7/22/2014 4:01 AM, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
I am just morbidly curious what program(s) deliver/mutilate/divine
these cell constants in recent cif files:
data_r4c69sf
#
_audit.revision_id 1_0
_audit.creation_date ?
_audit.update_record 'Initial release'
#
_cell.entry_id 4c69
_cell.length_a 100.152000427
_cell.length_b 58.3689994812
_cell.length_c 66.5449981689
_cell.angle_alpha 90.0
_cell.angle_beta 99.2519989014
_cell.angle_gamma 90.0
#
Maybe a little plausibility check during cif generation might be ok
Best, BR
PS: btw, 10^-20 meters (10^5 time smaller than a proton) in fact
seriously challenges the Standard Model limits....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernhard Rupp
k.-k. Hofkristallamt
Crystallographiae Vindicis Militum Ordo
b...@ruppweb.org <mailto:b...@ruppweb.org>
b...@hofkristallamt.org <mailto:b...@hofkristallamt.org>
http://www.ruppweb.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
