mean...still an unresolved mess see the papers/threads on cc1/2, cc*
etc...
Best, BR
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Roberto
Battistutta
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:09 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Rmerge,
tutta
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:09 PM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] Rmerge, Rmeas, I/sigma, Mn(I/sd)
>
> Hi,
> in the Rupp book the following relation is reported (on pag 415):
> Rmerge 0.8/
> referring to a relation of "the linear merg
Hi Ed,
your example seems to be designed to show that the average of reciprocal values
is not the same as the reciprocal of an average value? If that is what you are
alluding to, then please not that the (relatively narrow) Wilson distribution
of intensities has the effect of making the relatio
Roberto Battistutta wrote:
Hi,
in the Rupp book the following relation is reported (on pag 415):
Rmerge ≈ 0.8/
referring to a relation of "the linear merging R-value with the signal-to-noise
ratio".
in a 2006 CCP4bb, Manfred Weiss reported:
Rrim (or Rmeas) = 0.8*sd(i)/I
>
Bernhard Rupp wrote:
>>(i) We have multiple observations of the same, already integrated h: the
>>'unmerged' data <- most important data set which SHOULD BE deposited and
>>rarely is.
>yes, fully agree.
Perfect.
> I don't quite understand the difference between (ii) and (iii). As soon as
> you take the weighted a
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:33:30 +0200, Bernhard Rupp
wrote:
>>[There is] a distinction between indicators of the precision of merged data,
>>and those for the precision of unmerged data.
>
>Let's take a step back - definitions matter:
>
>(i) We have multiple observations of the same, already integ
>[There is] a distinction between indicators of the precision of merged data,
>and those for the precision of unmerged data.
Let's take a step back - definitions matter:
(i) We have multiple observations of the same, already integrated h: the
'unmerged' data <- most important data set which SHO
Hi Roberto,
for my taste the answers so far have not mentioned (or I did not understand
them) that there is a distinction between indicators of the precision of merged
data, and those for the precision of unmerged data.
It is not possible to directly compare (or equate) indicators of one catego
@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Roberto
Battistutta
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:09 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Rmerge, Rmeas, I/sigma, Mn(I/sd)
Hi,
in the Rupp book the following relation is reported (on pag 415):
Rmerge 0.8/
referring to a relation of "the linear merg
tutta
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:09 PM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] Rmerge, Rmeas, I/sigma, Mn(I/sd)
>
> Hi,
> in the Rupp book the following relation is reported (on pag 415):
> Rmerge 0.8/
> referring to a relation of "the linear merg
mean...still an unresolved mess see the papers/threads on cc1/2, cc*
etc...
Best, BR
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Roberto
Battistutta
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:09 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Rmerge,
, cc*
etc...
Best, BR
-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Roberto
Battistutta
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:09 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Rmerge, Rmeas, I/sigma, Mn(I/sd)
Hi,
in the Rupp book the following r
Hi,
in the Rupp book the following relation is reported (on pag 415):
Rmerge ≈ 0.8/
referring to a relation of "the linear merging R-value with the signal-to-noise
ratio".
in a 2006 CCP4bb, Manfred Weiss reported:
Rrim (or Rmeas) = 0.8*sd(i)/I
so,
First question: is it Rmerge or Rmeas (Rrim) t
13 matches
Mail list logo
