The people that already use multiplicity are going to find reasons why
it's the superior naming scheme - although the underlying reason has a
lot to do with negative associations with 'redundant', perhaps hightened
in the current environment. And conversely redundant works for many
others - Graeme's pragmatic defense of multiplicity actually works both
ways - any person who takes the trouble to read the stats table, now
exiled to Supplementary Data, knows what it means. Surely, then, the
only way forward on this almost totally irrelevant discussion is to come
up with a universally-loathed nomenclature that pleases nobody,
preferably an acronym whose origins will be lost to history and the
dusty CCP4 archives (which contain threads similar to this one). I
humbly submit:
NFDOF: Nearly Futile Data Overcollection Factor ?
[*]
Or, even better, could we not move on to equally pointless discussions
of the inappropriateness of "R-factor" ? I have a long history of
rearguard action trying to give stupid acronyms a wider audience, so
you're guaranteed to hear from me on this for years.
(Personally I'm pining for Gerard Kleywegt to resume his quest for
overextended naming rationales, of which ValLigURL is a personal
'favo[u]rite'. But I'm just old-fashioned.)
Ironically,
Phil Jeffrey
Princeton
[* I too have collected 540 degrees in P1 to solve a SAD structure, just
because I could, hence "nearly"]
[** The actual answer to this thread is: history is written by the
authors of scaling programs - and I think the Americans are currently
losing at this game, thus perilously close to making themselves redundant.]
On 6/30/20 4:14 AM, Winter, Graeme (DLSLtd,RAL,LSCI) wrote:
Or, we could accept the fact that crystallographers are kinda used to
multiplicity of an individual Miller index being different to
multiplicity of observations, and in Table 1 know which one you mean? 😉
Given that they add new information (at the very least to the scaling
model) they are strictly not “redundant”.
The amount that anyone outside of methods development cares about the
“epsilon” multiplicity of reflections is … negligible?
Sorry for chucking pragmatism into a dogmatic debate 😀
Cheerio Graeme
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
