We'll put you to work.
BS
From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Ian Tickle
[ianj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:42 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
Ber
f Gerard
Bricogne
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:17 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
Dear John,
What is wrong with honouring Sohnke by using his name for something that he
first saw a point in defining, and in investigating the propertie
Bernhard
On 2 May 2014 21:51, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
>
> Nonetheless, this does not necessarily discredit my quest for a
> descriptive adjective, and the
> absence of such after this lively engagement might indicate that the
> question was not quite as
> illegitimate as it might have appeared even
> namely "chirality-preserving".
enantiostatic ;-) ?
BR
sage-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Gerard
Bricogne
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 7:17 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
Dear John,
What is wrong with honouring Sohnke by using his name for some
gt;>> George
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 05/02/2014 02:35 PM, Jim Pflugrath wrote:
>>>> After all this discussion, I think that Bernhard can now lay the claim
>>>> that these 65 space groups should really just be labelled the "Rupp" space
Dear Jens,
I hope I can make a couple more remarks, and then I will keep quiet.
The first is that your suggestion that we do use Sohncke's name in
relation to these groups may still leave the impression that, as John put it
earlier, this name is just a "label". This is where I want
Bernhard et al,
>
>
> @ Jens:
>
> > I think the precise and correct term applicable to the "65" should
> be pro-chiral spacegroups. They are not chiral by themselves, but
> addition of "something" /allows/ for the creation of a chiral object
> (i.e. the crystal).
>
> For a moment I though we h
discussion, I think that Bernhard can now lay the claim
> >> that these 65 space groups should really just be labelled the "Rupp" space
> >> groups. At least it is one word.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> From: CCP4 bulletin bo
It well-known in the mathematics community to refer to these as Sohnke groups,
or even Jordan-Sohnke groups. Camille Jordan identified them in 1868-1869, and
L. A. Sohnke in 1879. William Barlow derived all 230 space groups by adding
reflection operations to Sohnke's 65 groups in 1894-1989.
uot;Rupp" space
>> groups. At least it is one word.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Bernhard Rupp
>> [hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:04 AM
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
&
s one word.
Jim
__
From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Bernhard
Rupp [hofkristall...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:04 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
…
riday, May 02, 2014 3:04 AM
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
….
Enough of this thread.
Over and out, BR
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, German
CMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Jim
> Pflugrath
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:36 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
>
> After all this discussion, I think that Bernhard can now lay the claim that
> these 65 space groups shou
I actually meant enantioweird.
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
Keller, Jacob
Sent: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:43
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
Or "space gRupps?"
From: CCP4 bull
You guys are enantioqueer.
BR
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
Keller, Jacob
Sent: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:43
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
Or "space gRupps?"
From: CCP4 bull
Or "space gRupps?"
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Jim
Pflugrath
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:36 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
After all this discussion, I think that Bernhard can n
nhard Rupp
[hofkristall...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:04 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
….
Enough of this thread.
Over and out, BR
>@ Ian:
Not quite, here's a table giving the complete list of the 3 types:
http://pd.chem.ucl.ac.uk/pdnn/symm3/allsgp.htm
Yes, this Table is known and agrees with what I wrote.
I still do not like, to the point of vehement opposition, the use of
enantiomorphic for the entire 65 because of th
> On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 16:12 +0200, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> > > Response to off-board mail:
> > >
> > > >How about [calling them] non-centro-symmetric space groups, as I
> often tell my students?
> > >
> > > Almost, but not exact enough.
> > >
> > > The 65 are only a subset of non-centrosymmet
actually, I'll have to amend that:
> Dear Bernhard (and others),
> I was looking for catchy combinations of "chiral" or "enantio" and
> Latin or Greek words for "support" or "allow" -- until I realized there
> is already a name for this very concept, used widely in chemistry:
> I think the pre
Dear Bernhard (and others),
I was looking for catchy combinations of "chiral" or "enantio" and
Latin or Greek words for "support" or "allow" -- until I realized there
is already a name for this very concept, used widely in chemistry:
I think the precise and correct term applicable to the "65"
Bernhard
The term "enantiomorphic pair" is used consistently in ITC-A to mean one of
the 11 pairs of what you previously called "chiral space groups".
PersonalIy I would never use the term "chiral" in this context even though
it is synonymous with "enantiomorphic" (I would reserved "chiral" for
si
Response to off-board mail:
>How about [calling them] non-centro-symmetric space groups, as I often tell my
>students?
Almost, but not exact enough.
The 65 are only a subset of non-centrosymmetric space groups:
Not all enantiogenic (not elements of the 65-set) space groups are
centrosymm
Hi Fellows,
I have bugged now the ultimate authorities including Howard Flack (of Flack
parameter fame),
and alas, there is no official descriptive adjective for these 65 Söhnke space
groups.
Chiral is definitely wrong, and so is enantiomorphic, although 22 of the
nameless form 11
enantiomo
Upon further contemplation:
Someone who builds a right-handed helix into a left-handed map is an
enantiopath. Enantiopathy can be treated with Enantiomab ® although some people
prefer a daily dose of enantiostatins. These generics are made by Irratiopharm.
BR
On 21 April 2014 21:57, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
>
>
> So the point is to use a meaningful qualifier that, applied as an
> adjective to a space group, describes what happens if that space group acts
> on a chiral object. Now the ‘enantio’ creeps in: enantio means other,
> opposite, and morphos, gesta
does the ACA Standards
> commission have to say? Who has an authoritative answer? Let there be light.
>
>
>
> Cheers, BR
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ian Tickle [mailto:ianj...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 20, 2014 4:52 PM
> *To:* b...@hofkristallamt.org
>
authoritative answer? Let there be light.
Cheers, BR
From: Ian Tickle [mailto:ianj...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 4:52 PM
To: b...@hofkristallamt.org
Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
Hi Bernhard
My understanding, gl
On Sunday, 20 April 2014 10:14:56 AM Ethan Merritt wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 April 2014 01:35:33 AM Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> > Hi Fellows,
> >
> >
> >
> > because confusion is becoming a popular search term on the bb, let me admit
> > to one more:
> >
> > What is the proper class name for the 65 sp
On Sunday, 20 April 2014 01:35:33 AM Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> Hi Fellows,
>
>
>
> because confusion is becoming a popular search term on the bb, let me admit
> to one more:
>
> What is the proper class name for the 65 space groups (you know, those):
>
>
>
> Are
>
> (a)these 65 SGs the
Hi Bernhard
My understanding, gleaned from ITC-A and ITC-B is that the 65 space groups
listed here: http://www.ccp4.ac.uk/dist/html/alternate_origins.html that I
assume you are referring to, are "enantiomorphic", which is defined as "not
possessing improper rotations" (see
http://pd.chem.ucl.ac.uk
Hi Fellows,
because confusion is becoming a popular search term on the bb, let me admit
to one more:
What is the proper class name for the 65 space groups (you know, those):
Are
(a)these 65 SGs the chiral SGs and the 22 in the 11 enantiomorphic pairs
the enantiomorphic SGs?
Or
(b)
33 matches
Mail list logo
