Dear Frank, in general it is not possible to determine the intensity of a reflection from a single fine slice. One needs slices for the complete reflection. Also, like Bernard, you are imposing criteria on the MPR, which are not imposed on the multiplicity/redundancy/abundancy.
All I ask the bulletin to think about my proposal as it is, without prejudices. Best, Herman Von: Frank Von Delft <frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2020 09:46 An: Schreuder, Herman /DE <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset? EXTERNAL : Real sender is frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk<mailto:frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk> If I fine slice the data, does each frame measuring the same reflection (or a part of it) count as a measurement? So that doesn't get us out of the woods, alas. Sent from tiny silly touch screen ________________________________ From: "Schreuder, Herman /DE" <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com<mailto:herman.schreu...@sanofi.com>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2020 08:33 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset? Dear Bernard and other bulletin board members, As Gerard mentioned, current data processing programs and table 1’s do not make this distinction, but of course, you are free to ask the community to introduce it. My proposal to use “measurements per reflections” is not a joke. It exactly describes what is meant by the parameter and it is easily understood even by lay people like journal editors and referees, without the need of lengthy explanations like the ones we have seen in this thread. I really would like to ask you to consider replacing multiplicity/redundancy/abundancy by MPR. At minimum, it may prevent a thread about completeness of data sets to be hijacked by a discussion on whether use the name multiplicity of redundancy for the number of measurements per reflection. My 2 cents, Herman Von: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> Im Auftrag von Bernhard Rupp Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020 17:50 An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset? EXTERNAL : Real sender is owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk> .…but there is a difference whether I measure the same identical hkl over again or ‘preferably in more than one symmetry-equivalent position’, to quote the IUCr. So do we have a MPSR for the same reflection and a MPRR for the related reflections? Cacophonically yours, BR From: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> On Behalf Of John R Helliwell Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 08:36 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset? Dear Herman, I think that MPR is a very neat and tidy, excellent, proposal. Moreover it uses the word “measurements”, and we are an experimental based science. I support it. Great. Greetings, John Emeritus Professor John R Helliwell DSc On 30 Jun 2020, at 15:10, Schreuder, Herman /DE <herman.schreu...@sanofi.com<mailto:herman.schreu...@sanofi.com>> wrote: Dear BB, Since there does not seem a generally accepted term for the subject of this discussions, and since even the IUCR scriptures do not give any guidance, I would propose to introduce a completely new term: Measurements per reflection or MPR This term is politically neutral, should adequately describe this particular statistic and is not associated with entrenched traditions at either side of the Atlantic. What do you think? Herman Von: CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> Im Auftrag von John R Helliwell Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020 14:34 An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset? EXTERNAL : Real sender is owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww1.iucr.org_iucr-2Dtop_comm_cnom_statdes_recomm.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=vb2CFOGKla49hE2sbHAt6LCUz63K7uis9PmSUxUgMcM&s=-45HByHsLJPmc2KRmPKamiFNf1WFCI51GonllFyIRTE&e=> 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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwQFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=vb2CFOGKla49hE2sbHAt6LCUz63K7uis9PmSUxUgMcM&s=aGhwDJW1Tz5Uv5JNfNgM0GK130Iyy3LfbUxrB8T_uo0&e=> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_CCP4BB&d=DwQFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=vb2CFOGKla49hE2sbHAt6LCUz63K7uis9PmSUxUgMcM&s=XxFj75JTvy4wp52qIe1FqQsa7--uLknEz4dPWcvffP0&e=>, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk&d=DwQFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=vb2CFOGKla49hE2sbHAt6LCUz63K7uis9PmSUxUgMcM&s=9E0X2NSQ08FgQv_wzJVxbzs5lsC4iLM9PlOGHnQhw6Y&e=>, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_policyandsecurity_&d=DwQFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=vb2CFOGKla49hE2sbHAt6LCUz63K7uis9PmSUxUgMcM&s=tQo38qgGTFaUn_RZb-ZF04Kjn2Gh2oJr1aNHHE-ELRw&e=> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=vb2CFOGKla49hE2sbHAt6LCUz63K7uis9PmSUxUgMcM&s=aGhwDJW1Tz5Uv5JNfNgM0GK130Iyy3LfbUxrB8T_uo0&e=> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=J0zDXf_fmFuuuSdL_f3Rux6-Dkg9g4Myb2J6inlBYOY&s=Ib310E3JW-V0qyXGEQchrvA7HBHF9JKxtpRbxK4HkMo&e=> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=J0zDXf_fmFuuuSdL_f3Rux6-Dkg9g4Myb2J6inlBYOY&s=Ib310E3JW-V0qyXGEQchrvA7HBHF9JKxtpRbxK4HkMo&e=> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jiscmail.ac.uk_cgi-2Dbin_WA-2DJISC.exe-3FSUBED1-3DCCP4BB-26A-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=Dbf9zoswcQ-CRvvI7VX5j3HvibIuT3ZiarcKl5qtMPo&r=HK-CY_tL8CLLA93vdywyu3qI70R4H8oHzZyRHMQu1AQ&m=Vd6Mrw_TUoLXxDwo9SKiswUXRTCFhvliNIu0-Cq1g4I&s=oxRUDhkU-7b7LsJm_Ihj9pYj0pBUYrSU9ev41fu5JOk&e=> ######################################################################## 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/
