: CCP4BB@jiscmail.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
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
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 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
: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
... despite these informations, I still prefer structure factor
amplitude, because it is the amplitude of the structure factor ...
Best regards,
Dirk.
Am 12.01.2009 um 11:42 schrieb Ian Tickle:
I was taught 'structure amplitude' - makes perfect
-Original Message-
From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-ccp...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Dirk Kostrewa
Sent: 12 January 2009 10:52
To: CCP4BB
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
... despite these informations, I still prefer structure factor
amplitude, because
] On Behalf Of Dirk Kostrewa
Sent: 12 January 2009 10:52
To: CCP4BB
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
... despite these informations, I still prefer structure factor
amplitude, because it is the amplitude of the structure factor ...
Best regards,
Dirk.
Am
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 structure
: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
Dear Ian,
My reply to this question will be less literate and less
democratic
than yours. In spite of the nice Alice quote, I remain in
favour of trying
to use compound names whose internal structure is, as much as
possible,
isomorphic
-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 yours. In spite
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:
: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
Dear Ian,
My reply to this question will be less literate and less
democratic
than yours. In spite of the nice Alice quote, I remain in
favour of trying
to use compound names whose internal structure is, as much as
possible,
isomorphic to the composition
...@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 1/10/2009 5:14 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
On Saturday 10 January 2009
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 Saturday 10 January 2009, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
Dear All,
I am
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
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
define it
] structure (factor) amplitude
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
-Original Message-
From: owner-ccp...@jiscmail.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
[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 Saturday 10 January 2009, Bernhard
: 773.608.9185
email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu
***
- Original Message -
From: Ethan Merritt merr...@u.washington.edu
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
On Monday 12
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
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 4750. So all
round I
would say
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
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
merr...@u.washington.edu
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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
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 4750. So all
round I
@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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 4750. So
Come on, Jim, even now 90% of students don't realize that boldF/bold
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
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
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
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
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 (factor) amplitude
Dear Gerard,
As usual, your contribution
***
- Original Message -
From: Fischmann, Thierry thierry.fischm...@spcorp.com
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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
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]. Second, one
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 that
- Original Message -
From: Bernhard Rupp bernhardr...@sbcglobal.net
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
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
-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 vote to people whom I think we can assume
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor) amplitude
Dear Ian,
My reply to this question will be less literate and less
democratic
than yours. In spite of the nice Alice quote, I remain in
favour of trying
to use compound names whose internal structure is, as much as
possible
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
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
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
