Dear Colleagues, In an effort to break this naming deadlock, and with Massimo and Ian not showing up as yet, I checked the IUCr Dictionary. “Redundancy“ and “Multiplicity“ are not listed. The more generic term “Statistical Descriptors“ is though and even offers Recommendations:- http://ww1.iucr.org/iucr-top/comm/cnom/statdes/recomm.html Point 1, first sentence, fits the various wishes of this thread succinctly, if not in a single word, and even not readily allowing an easy acronym. Greetings, John
Emeritus Professor John R Helliwell DSc > On 30 Jun 2020, at 13:11, Phil Jeffrey <pjeff...@princeton.edu> wrote: > > 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/ ######################################################################## 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/
