JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  January 2015

CCP4BB January 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Redundancy vs no of frames

From:

Gerard Bricogne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Gerard Bricogne <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:05:21 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

Dear Bernhard,

     You are being charmingly modest and self-critical: your philosophical
discourse has always contributed to broadening an initially narrow question
in an enlightening way :-) .

     In this case, it seems to me that Rohit's narrow question itself has
only been touched upon. Clearly, we know what is meant by the "redundancy"
he mentions in his question, independently of the extent to which it can or
not help reduce errors in the final merged data: it is the number of times
that unique reflections are measured through symmetry equivalence, and
perhaps Friedel equivalence if no anomalous differences are to be ignored.

     Kay's gives an outline of a formula, but I would say that it is a very
"noisy" outline, in the sense that it suggests a linearity that applies only
in the limit of very high multiplicity. The main thing is that when one is
far from that limit, redundancy can be very uneven across the set of unique
reflections (it can even be zero for a subset of them if the available
frames do not achieve completeness) and that this pattern depends not only
on the space group but on the orientation of the symmetry axes with respect
to the rotation axis. Of course, as you add frames, you add more reflections
and something is bound to increase; but the way in which that increase is
distributed between completeness and redundancy can be quite capricious.
This was the motivation for Raimond Ravelli's beautiful work on his STRATEGY
program (http://www.crystal.chem.uu.nl/distr/strategy.html). In the days
when people alway tried to collect a complete dataset in a minimum number of
frames, one moment of inattention caused by synchrotron fatigue could easily
lead to collecting half the data with a multiplicity of 2 instead of
complete data with a redundancy of 1, e.g. if one forgot about a 2-fold axis
perpendicular to the rotation axis that perversely related the second half
of the dataset to the first. Raimond told me that he was once bitten in this
way, and promised to himself that he would never be again - so he wrote his
program!

     I am digressing (into history rather than philosophy) myself ... . The
short answer to your question, Rohit, is ... that there is no short answer
to it in the guise of a simple formula, unless you have a very large
redundancy. Talking about "redundancy" as a single number is also
misleading: it is a distribution, whose magnitude can vary a lot across the
set of unique reflections - unless, again, it is very large everywhere. All
data processing programs will give you an idea of that distribution, at
least as a function of resolution (although it would often be useful to be
able to examine it in 3D).


     With best wishes,

          Gerard.

--
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 02:12:51PM +0100, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
> In defense of redundancy:
> 
> While the IUCr online dictionary is notably silent about multiplicity, the term itself seems
> already oversubscribed and used differently in various crystallographic contexts.
> 
> (i) Each general or special  position in a crystal structure has a certain multiplicity, defined by symmetry.
> 
> (ii) General reflection multiplicity M is usually is defined by reflection symmetry, and 
> when reflections are affected by special operations, the resulting corresponding 
> lower multiplicity because they map onto themselves is accounted for in the epsilon factor e. 
> 
> Btw a useful table of M and e is Iwasaki & Ito Acta Cryst. (1977). A33, 227-229
> 
> (iii) In case of Laue patterns, overlap of higher order reflections is also called Multiplicity afaik
> (various Helliwell/Moffat et al papers explain this).
> 
> So expanding the term multiplicity to include multiple instances of measurements of the same reflections 
> - while admittedly avoiding the connotation of obsolescence - adds to its promiscuous meaning,
> where context becomes part of the definition....
> 
> I abstain from making any suggestions because in the past this has led to interesting
> but time-consuming philosophical discourse, proving in general the multiplicity of my reflections 
> and positions redundant if not obsolete. 
> 
> Best, BR
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kay Diederichs
> Sent: Sonntag, 18. Januar 2015 09:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Redundancy vs no of frames
> 
> Dear Rohit Kumar,
> 
> I prefer the term "multiplicity" instead of "redundancy" because the latter has a connotation of "not really needed any more".
> 
> The relation then is
> 
> multiplicity = c * number_of_frames * oscillation_range
> 
> where the constant c depends mainly on the space group.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Kay 
> 
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 02:35:46 +0530, rohit kumar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> >Dear all,
> >
> >Can anyone tell me how to calculate number of frames from redundancy or 
> >vica versa
> >
> >Thank you
> >

-- 

     ===============================================================
     *                                                             *
     * Gerard Bricogne                     [log in to unmask]  *
     *                                                             *
     * Global Phasing Ltd.                                         *
     * Sheraton House, Castle Park         Tel: +44-(0)1223-353033 *
     * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK               Fax: +44-(0)1223-366889 *
     *                                                             *
     ===============================================================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager