Dear all,
It is nice to see this rather high-brow thread end with some verbal
humour, but I think the subject might deserve a better treatment than it has
received. Three-dimensional crystallographic space groups were classified by
3 different people as far back as the 19th century, and questions such as
those that have been discussed are ultra-classical in group theory - so if
this thread is to lead us towards the spool rather than the ragged end, we
should look towards those sources.
It has perhaps been an unfortunate side effect of the creation of the
International Tables that we have tended to consider such topics as being
part of our private microcosm and folklore, all compiled between the covers
of a single book. Perhaps we should be a little less flippant: if we are to
identify the actual "ultimate authorities" on this topic, we may have to
look further than colleagues who can be contacted by e-mail and come up with
an answer within a day.
Happy weekend to all,
Gerard.
--
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 01:42:36PM +0000, Keller, Jacob wrote:
> Or "space gRupps?"
>
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Jim
> Pflugrath
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 8:36 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
>
> After all this discussion, I think that Bernhard can now lay the claim that
> these 65 space groups should really just be labelled the "Rupp" space groups.
> At least it is one word.
>
> Jim
>
> ________________________________
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] on behalf of Bernhard Rupp
> [hofkristall...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 3:04 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Confusion about space group nomenclature
> ....
>
> Enough of this thread.
>
> Over and out, BR
