Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 / density

  • To: Multiple recipients of list <coredmg@iucr.org>
  • Subject: Re: CoreCIF revision 2.3 / density
  • From: Howard Flack <Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:06:41 +0100 (BST)
>                                '_exptl_crystal_density_meas_gt'
>                                '_exptl_crystal_density_meas_lt'

  If the 'results' need to be presented in such a form, it just means
that no experimental measurement has been undertaken. 
  Limits of this kind have no good statistical or physical meaning or
use. Why > 3.10 and not > 3.11 . They are useless by way of restraints.
A fixed precise arbitary boundary on a continuous variable is nonsense.

DB> I RECOMMEND that we approve these two
DB> # items.

  I recommend you to kill them.


[Send comment to list secretary]
[Reply to list (subscribers only)]