Yes, of course it makes sense now. I'm typically using NOT in the context of database searching where it is much less mathematically precise. Thanks for the clarification.
Dean On 2/13/07 6:18 PM, "Bob Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dean Johnston wrote: > >> I have a file with about 15 models in it and I want to select all but the >> first model. I've figured out a way to do this (after some trial and >> error), but I'm not sure it makes sense to me. I can just say: >> >> SELECT not */1 or SELECT not 1.1 >> >> and I get what I want (there is an inferred ALL in there). My first thought >> was to say SELECT * not 1.1 or SELECT all not 1.1, but they gave errors. I >> guess I just want to be more explicit about the sets that I am combining >> using the NOT. Does this make sense? Perhaps there should be a select >> RANGE option similar to the FRAME command. >> >> >> > "not" is a "unary operator" - that is, it operates on the next item but > doesn't connect two. So > > select not */1 > > makes sense. The "not */1" is always done first. > > select * and not */1 > > also makes sense, but is unnecessary, since "ALL and" does nothing. > > You can say > > frames all; > display */1 and not */1.3; > > to display all the models of file 1 except model 1.3 > > Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
