Dear Ian, > distinction you're making between 'A Rice function' and 'THE Rice function' since > my understanding was that there was only one form of Rice distribution, > i.e. the one defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_distribution .
The same distinction seems common for the Gauss ND - we say that some normal distribution is A Gauss function, not THE Gauss function.... > and 2) the PDF of the *(real) structure amplitude*, which is the Rice distribution, > and which is the result of integrating out of the phase (which gives the I0 component > of the Rice distribution) from the structure factor distribution. The integrated-out real distribution with I0 seems to be the one that appears in the majority of the Sim papers. He probably never called it a Rice function, because his first derivation of that formula probably parallels the 1954 'Mathematical analysis of random noise', but there are references to earlier talks of Rice in it. > However it would seem more logical to call the integrated (Rice) form of Sim's > function 'the Sim distribution' and not use this term to mean the 2-D Gaussian. That seems logical. > As for ACNSFD & CCNSFD, I'm not clear what you mean, Integrated form of Sim/Rice distribution and Woolfson distribution, expressed in normalized structure factor amplitudes. Fits your defs. > do you mean the *structure amplitude* distributions? Ah - payback for the obsoleting of the structure amplitudes.... Yes, all clear. Thx! And thx again to Dominika for copying the Rice article (a 180 pp book part, actually) Cheers BR
