Dear Ian,
I stand corrected: I should have realized before writing rather than
afterwards that you were surely stressing the formalization (or
formalisation) part.
Cheers,
Navdeep
---
On 02.07.20 22:09, Ian Tickle wrote:
>
> Hi Navdeep
>
> Yes good point, the principle of redundancy (though t
Thanks Ian - I think you raise some excellent points - while I think the
general reader (TM) would understand that redundancy and multiplicity mean
broadly the same thing in Table 1, I think having program developers document
_precisely_ what they mean by those values would be very valuable. I a
Hi Navdeep
Yes good point, the principle of redundancy (though they wouldn't have used
that term!) has a very long history, but von Neumann did more than anyone
before him to formalise it:
http://www.cyclify.com/wiki/images/a/af/Von_Neumann_Probabilistic_Logics_and_the_Synthesis_of_Reliable_Organ
Dear Ian,
You seem to be slightly off there: The successful use of repeating
observations to reduce (especially systematic) observational error
predates von Neumann by at least 4 centuries.
One of the first instances of its use was in the 1500s, due to a migrant
scientist working in Denmark and P
Good morning Jose,
The devil is always on the detail:-
You are of course correct that I had presumed, as Ethan pointed out, a sub 10
fsec pulse.
Neutrons creating magnetic waves, you are again correct, “spin echo“ does
occur, but without damage though as neutrons have such gentle energies versu
On Wednesday, 1 July 2020 18:50:57 PDT Jose Brandao-Neto wrote:
> Hi Ian, good to hear! Hi everyone, thanks for the etymological - and
> etiological - discussion. I'm good whatever the choice.
>
> John, I beg to differ with the absolute statement that xfels offer damage
> free hkls - back in 201
Hi Ian, good to hear! Hi everyone, thanks for the etymological - and
etiological - discussion. I'm good whatever the choice.
John, I beg to differ with the absolute statement that xfels offer damage free
hkls - back in 2016 yet another great experimental work, by Inoue et al
(https://www.pnas.o
Dear Ian,
I take issue with your assertion below that “the totally precise **scientific**
meaningis an **engineering**” definition.
Science and engineering are not the same. Health and safety leads to the need
in engineering for redundancy and indeed safety factors. In essence, in
engineer
I find, when discussing definitions of words, it’s always good to look in the
OED (well, the SOED, I don’t have the big one). For redundant (redundancy
being defined as the state or quality of being redundant), we find:
1. Superabundant, superfluous, excessive. b. Characterised by superfluity o
Yes this seems to be a common misunderstanding, that the meanings of words
such as 'redundancy' have to be the same in an informal non-scientific
context and in a formal technical/scientific context.
So we can say that in an informal context, 'redundancy' means "unnecessary
duplication (or multipl
t;
> > Cacophonically yours,
> >
> >
> >
> > BR
> >
> >
> >
> > From: CCP4 bulletin board On Behalf Of John R
> > Helliwell
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 08:36
> > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: R
> BR
>
>
>
> From: CCP4 bulletin board On Behalf Of John R Helliwell
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 08:36
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ccp4bb] number of frames to get a full dataset?
>
>
>
> Dear Herman,
&
To: 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
Gerard, fantastic proposal - let's call it "abundancy"!!!
Which developer will be the first to change their logfile?
On 30/06/2020 16:38, Gerard Bricogne wrote:
Dear Phil,
I would like to make an attempt to not let this question get mired in
exchanges of well-researched linguistic argum
bulletin board On Behalf Of John R Helliwell
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 08:36
To: 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
Dear Phil,
I would like to make an attempt to not let this question get mired in
exchanges of well-researched linguistic arguments at risk of being drowned
in a cacophony of sound bites :-) .
You refer to the days of SCALA, at which time data were collected on
CCD detectors, whose lengt
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
> w
I changed the annotation from “Redundancy” to “Multiplicity” in Scala, later in
Aimless, after I was taken to task by Elspeth Garman with the argument as
stated, that if it’s redundant why did you bother to measure it?
(this one could run and run …)
Phil
> On 30 Jun 2020, at 14:07, Ian Tickle
I agree about RAID but I would go a lot further. There seems to be some
confusion here over the correct meaning of 'redundant' as used in a
scientific context. I don't think looking it up in an English dictionary
is very helpful. So as has been mentioned the non-scientific and rather
imprecise m
By all means, if you still have "disks" you should get rid of them, and
replace them with some modern storage.
On 2020-06-29 21:17, Edward A. Berry wrote:
Now can we get rid of all the superfluous disks in our RAID? Or at
least not replace them when they fail?
On 06/29/2020 06:24 PM, Andrea
Ok, the analogy is not great because most reflection data sets have some
"fault tolerance" whereas RAID 0 does not. But the point is that anything
that is not an exact copy and brings actual information should not be
considered "redundant"
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, 09:00 David Waterman, wrote:
> Refl
Reflections are as "redundant" as the disks in a RAID 0 array
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, 02:49 James Holton, wrote:
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> On 6/29/2020 6:17 PM, Edward A. Berry wrote:
> > Now can we get rid of all the superfluous disks in our RAID? Or at
What could possibly go wrong?
-James Holton
MAD Scientist
On 6/29/2020 6:17 PM, Edward A. Berry wrote:
Now can we get rid of all the superfluous disks in our RAID? Or at
least not replace them when they fail?
On 06/29/2020 06:24 PM, Andreas Förster wrote:
I like to think that the reflections
Now can we get rid of all the superfluous disks in our RAID? Or at least not
replace them when they fail?
On 06/29/2020 06:24 PM, Andreas Förster wrote:
I like to think that the reflections I carefully measured at high multiplicity are not redundant, which the
dictionary on my computer defines
24 matches
Mail list logo
