there is
> precedent for an alternative name for the object in question, and
> perhaps a reference should be made to the original authoritative
> definition.
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Ian
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gerard Bricogne [mail
> -Original Message-
> From: marc.schi...@epfl.ch [mailto:marc.schi...@epfl.ch]
> Sent: 12 January 2009 22:35
> To: Ian Tickle
> Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
>
> Ian Tickle wrote:
>
> OK, limiting the
- Original Message -
From: "Bernhard Rupp"
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 4:09 PM
Subject: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
Dear All,
I am getting conflicting comments on the use of
'structure factor amplitude'
vs. just
'structure amplitude
Ian Tickle wrote:
OK, limiting the vote to people whom I think we can assume know what
vaguely they're talking about, i.e. Acta Cryst. / J. Appl. Cryst.
authors, and using the IUCr search engine we get 553 hits for "structure
amplitude" and 256 for "structure factor amplitude"
But be warned t
On Jan 12, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Ethan Merritt wrote:
"geometrical structure factor" gets 68 hits in the IUCr search engine,
and 2190 GHits (GHits == Google Hits)
To avoid confusion, can we use "gHit" as a google Hit unit? First,
"google" is traditionally spelled with a lowercase "g"[1]. Secon
***
- Original Message -
From: "Fischmann, Thierry"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
I'll add my 2 calories then. Gerard's new naming carefully avoids the
"Factor" and "Amplit
TRUDL in the Protein Data
Bank along with the atomic coordinates"
Thierry
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
Gerard Bricogne
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 02:34 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (fa
> PS: I vote for that "structure factor amplitude" be used in text books
> and |F| on cell phones. Student of 2015: "You mean 'abs-F' is really
> pronounced 'structure factor amplitude'? I didn't know that!"
By 2015, it would probably be some less-comprehensible variant of
instant-messenging con
Dear Gerard,
As usual, your contribution is a hard act to follow. However, given
that your actual proposal can be rather indigestible (especially with lots
of cream) we might have to stick with the current options.
What the perusal of James has revealed is that, if we want to respect
As suggested by Tassos, what we need now more than ever is some Dutch
diplomacy so that he healing can really begin. Various people have argued for
a shorter term (Brazilians, Pflugrath) and since I'm personally rather partial
to Brazilians I would say we ought to go with that and shave off a fe
Come on, Jim, even now 90% of students don't realize that F
is a phased amplitude, we think of it as a complex number, and that F(obs)
or F(calc) are probably the appropriate |F|.
Bob
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Jim Pflugrath wrote:
I wonder if the early use of the shortened "structure amplitude" is
e amplitude."
> >>
> >> (1950 ed., Ch II, 1a (p27))
> >>
> >> JPK
> >>
> >> ***
> >> Jacob Pearson Keller
> >> Northwestern University
> >> Medical Scientist Training Program
> >> D
*
- Original Message - From: "Ethan Merritt"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
On Monday 12 January 2009 02:42:43 Ian Tickle wrote:
Also I did a 'Google vote' for the two terms. 'St
>> Northwestern University
>> Medical Scientist Training Program
>> Dallos Laboratory
>> F. Searle 1-240
>> 2240 Campus Drive
>> Evanston IL 60208
>> lab: 847.491.2438
>> cel: 773.608.9185
>> email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu
>>
cp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Bernhard Rupp
> Sent: 12 January 2009 17:44
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK; sa...@igbmc.fr
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
>
> Hmmm.
>
> Sacha just threw another wrench into that discourse. Seems we are
> also faced with a du
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
On Monday 12 January 2009 02:42:43 Ian Tickle wrote:
Also I did a 'Google vote' for the two terms. 'Structure
amplitude' has
11300 hits. 'Structure factor amplitude' has only 4
Hmmm.
Sacha just threw another wrench into that discourse. Seems we are
also faced with a duality problem here:
Coming from a mathematical point of view treating F as a complex number,
structure factor magnitude or
structure factor modulus
is more logical and more direct.
If you are taki
1.2438
cel: 773.608.9185
email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu
***
- Original Message -
From: "Ethan Merritt"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
On Monday 12 January 2009 02:42
;
> Cheers
>
> -- Ian
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> > [mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pavel Afonine
> > Sent: 11 January 2009 03:01
> > To: Ethan A Merritt
> > Cc: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
> >
ac.uk <mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk>
[mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pavel Afonine
Sent: 11 January 2009 03:01
To: Ethan A Merritt
Cc: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
On 1/10/2009 5:14 PM, Etha
f Ed Pozharski
> Sent: 12 January 2009 14:37
> To: Ian Tickle
> Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
>
> > Also I did a 'Google vote' for the two terms. 'Structure
> amplitude' has
> > 11300 hits.
>
> My preference is also for the full structure factor amplitude. I would have
> said that I'd never seen
> the term structure amplitude used. However, I just looked this up in my old
> Stout & Jensen (1968
> edition - brown cover) and find that (on p. 195) where |F| is introduced they
> def
I wonder if the early use of the shortened "structure amplitude" is
because it was a pain to do any typing, word processing, typesetting, etc
before Gutenberg.
But soon crystallographers will be solving all their structures on their
cell phones and also just text messaging manuscripts to edito
(or amplitudes).
Cheers
-- Ian
-Original Message-
From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pavel Afonine
Sent: 11 January 2009 03:01
To: Ethan A Merritt
Cc: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
On 1/10/
f comparing the pdb files
of a small single domain protein and a ribosome. Two structures having
different sizes (or amplitudes).
> Cheers
>
> -- Ian
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> > [mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Beh
-- Ian
-Original Message-----
From: Gerard Bricogne [mailto:g...@globalphasing.com]
Sent: 12 January 2009 12:09
To: Ian Tickle
Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
Dear Ian,
My reply to this question will be less literate and less
democratic
than yo
> Also I did a 'Google vote' for the two terms. 'Structure amplitude' has
> 11300 hits. 'Structure factor amplitude' has only 4750. So all round I
> would say that 'structure amplitude' wins by a considerable margin.
Results of another Google vote:
"Earth is flat":
55,
tive name for the object in question, and
perhaps a reference should be made to the original authoritative
definition.
Cheers
-- Ian
-Original Message-
From: Gerard Bricogne [mailto:g...@globalphasing.com]
Sent: 12 January 2009 12:09
To: Ian Tickle
Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [c
ailto:g...@globalphasing.com]
> Sent: 12 January 2009 12:09
> To: Ian Tickle
> Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> My reply to this question will be less literate and less
> democratic
> than yours. In spite
Ian Tickle wrote:
I think there's a confusion here between the name of an object (what you
call it) and its description (i.e. its properties). The name of the
object is "structure amplitude" and it's description is "amplitude of
the structure factor", or if you prefer the shortened form "structu
;No you oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways and
> Means' but that's only what it's called, you know!"
> "Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who was by this time
> completely bewildered.
> "I was coming to t
it's called, you know!"
"Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-
sitting
On a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."
Cheers
-- I
ight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting
On a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."
Cheers
-- Ian
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk
> [mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Dirk Kostrewa
> Sent: 12 January
'Structure factor amplitude' has only 4750. So all
round I
would say that 'structure amplitude' wins by a considerable margin.
Cheers
-- Ian
-Original Message-
From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pavel Afonine
Sent: 11 J
gt; [mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pavel Afonine
> Sent: 11 January 2009 03:01
> To: Ethan A Merritt
> Cc: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
>
>
>
> On 1/10/2009 5:14 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
>
>
On 1/10/2009 5:14 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
On Saturday 10 January 2009, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
Dear All,
I am getting conflicting comments on the use of
'structure factor amplitude'
vs. just
'structure amplitude'
for |F|.
???
That's just... odd.
|F| is the amplitude of F.
But no
On Saturday 10 January 2009, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am getting conflicting comments on the use of
> 'structure factor amplitude'
> vs. just
> 'structure amplitude'
> for |F|.
???
That's just... odd.
|F| is the amplitude of F.
But no way F is a "structure".
--
Ethan A Merritt
Dear All,
I am getting conflicting comments on the use of
'structure factor amplitude'
vs. just
'structure amplitude'
for |F|.
Is there some 'modern' consensus on a preference?
Best, BR
38 matches
Mail list logo
