This
chain reminds me of another discussion we had during dinner at Grenoble in the
late '90s.
The topic of the argument was how to pronounce the name
'Cicero'.
Namely, my Italian friend (Gino C) was claiming it should
be pronounced like in modern Italian, 'Chichero',
while I was
claiming that since the contemporary Greeks20transcribed it as 'Kikero' (with
a k)
it should indeed sound as in modern Greek,
Kikero.
My learned Dutch colleague (Mark vR) after a few
minutes of this rather dull argument he exclaimed in the well
known
Dutch diplomatic manner: 'But, who
chares?'
Not that I don't care, but I would personally
understand the same thing in both cases - and I am enjoying the
argument.
A.
PS Wikipedia says:
Marcus Tullius Cicero (Classical Latin pronounced [ˈkikeroː], usually
pronounced /ˈsɪsəɹəʊ/ in English; January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC) was a
Roman statesman, lawyer, political theorist, philosopher, and Roman
constitutionalist.
On Jan 12, 2009, at 14:48, Ian Tickle
wrote:
> Hi Gerard &
Marc
>
> My answer was my interpretation of Bernhard's
original question "what
> *is* the currently accepted name of the
object whose description is
> 'structure factor amplitude' ?", and
was based both on authoritative
> precedent, i.e. ITC Vol. B, and
on frequency of current usage, i.e.
> Google hits. Carroll was
making the point that in logic the name of > an
> object is
minimally only an arbitrary string of characters (preferably
>
pronounceable!), like the name of a variable in a program, which
>
minimally need have no semantic connotations whatsoever: "a rose by >
any
> other name would smell as sweet". The only requirement is
that it > must
> not be ambiguous, i.e. you can't have two
different objects within the
> same context with the same name.
For example my name 'Ian' provides > no
> semantic clues as to
my description (except perhaps that I'm male), > and
> causes
no problems provided no other 'Ian's enter the discussion.
>
However alternate names for the same object are clearly allowed
>
(consider names of objects in different
languages).
>
> In this case I am not offering an
opinion on what I think the name
> *should be*, I am merely
reporting on what the name *is* (however
> illogical), based on
precedent and usage. However I do accept your
> argument that when
making up the compound name of an object, it should
> as far as
possible also be accurately descriptive in the way it >
relates
> to the names of related objects, consistent with the
conflicting needs
> for abbreviation and lack of ambiguity. You
are going much further > than
> me: you are answering a
different question "what *should be* the
> accepted name of ...
?". In this case you have clearly made a strong
> argu ment, which
I accept, for establishing an alternate name for this
> particular
object. However one should not create new names or change
> the
names of objects lightly, if misunderstandings are to be
avoided.
> Fortunately in this case it can be done with minimal
> misunderstanding on
> the part of the readers of Bernhard's
textbook (though others may
> disagree on that point), provided it
is pointed out that there is
> precedent for an alternative name
for the object in question, and
> perhaps a reference should be
made to the original authoritative
>
definition.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
Ian
>
>> -----Original
Message-----
>> From: Gerard Bricogne [
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>
Sent: 12 January 2009 12:09
>> To: Ian Tickle
>>
Cc:
[log in to unmask] >>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor)
amplitude
>>
>> Dear
Ian,
>>
>> My reply to this question will be
less literate and less
>> democratic
>> than
yours. In spite of the nice Alice quote, I remain in
>> favour
of trying
>> to use compound names whose inter nal structure
is, as much as
>> possible,
>> "isomorphic" to
the composition of meanings they refer to
>> (even though I
am
>> not necessarily an unconditional fanatic of OOP). Even
if,
>> allegedly, only
>> God has a name for
each object that completely specifies it
>> and even
gives
>> it its very existence, I feel it is not unrealistic
nor
>> immodest to do our
>> best to achieve
this in our scientific language. If we
>> modelled the
rigour
>> of scientific language on that of Lewis Carroll's, we
would
>> be in serious
>> trouble (perhaps this
is why scientists enjoy his humour so
>> much: it
is
>> like taking off a pair of tight shoes; and it was
probably
>> his own escape
>> from the rigours
of mathematical logic).
>>
>> In this case, the
word "factor" refers to the fact that,
>> in the
Darwin
>> formula for an integrated intensity, there are many
factors
>> in a complicated
>> algebraic
expression, and that one of them depends on the
>> internal
structure
>> of the crystal. The relation to Fourier theory
makes it
>> desirable t o use as
>> the basic
structure-dependent quantity the complex Fourier
>> coefficient
of
>> the electron density, so the latter then becomes known as
the
>> "structure
>> (-dependent) factor (in the
Darwin formula)". Being a complex
>> number,
it
>> inherits as an attribute the modulus of that complex
number,
>> for which the
>> synonym "amplitude"
is used - regrettably, but possibly
>> because the
word
>> "modulus" was already widely used, e.g. in the theory
of elasticity.
>>
>> Therefore the expression
"structure factor amplitude"
>> can be parsed
as
>> being "the amplitude (a.k.a. modulus) of a complex
number
>> which is involved
>> in the
structure-dependent factor in the Darwin formula".
>> Along
with Dirk
>> Kostrewa I vote for retaining the full-length
expression, as
>> the abbreviated
>> one makes
one think that a structure has an amplitude ...
.
>>
>> Abbreviations can be great, but they can
also result in
>> a substantial
>> loss of
intelligibility. Look at the transition to "Brazilian
>>
spelling" in
>> Portuguese, whereby "optimo" is abbrevi ated to
"otimo". A
>> non-Portuguese
>> speaker (even an
English-only speaker!) can understand the
>> word from
its
>> first spelling because the Latin derivation is clear;
but
>> this is no longer
>> the case for the
abbreviated one, unless one also remembers
>> what it is
an
>> abbreviation of. Similarly, "structure amplitude" does
not
>> tell you that
>> there is a complex
number called the structure factor, of which one >> is
>>
considering the amplitude/modulus.
>>
>> Sorry
for this long message: as the question originated
>> from
Bernhard,
>> who is in the process of writing a textbook, I
think it is
>> important that
>> points of
terminology like this one be given careful
>> consideration and
a
>> satisfactory conclusion; so I hope that many other
people
>> will give some
>> attention to this
thread (even if they disagree with
me!).
>>
>>
>> With best
wishes,
>>
>>
Gerard.
>>
>>
>>
--
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:09:34AM -0000, Ian Tickle
wrote:
>>> I think there's a confusion here between the name
of an
>> object (what you
>>> call it) and
its description (i.e. its properties). The name of the
>>>
object is "structure amplitude" and it's description is
>>
"amplitude of
>>> the structure factor", or if you prefer
the shortened form
>> "structure
>>> factor
amplitude". This distinction was of course carried
>> to
absurdity
>>> in "Alice through the Looking
Glass":
>>>
>>> "It's long." said the
Knight, "but it's very, very
>> beautiful.
Everybody
>>> that hears me sing it - either it brings tears
to their
>> eyes, or else -"
>>> "Or else
what?" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden
pause.
>>> "Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the
song is
>> called 'Haddocks'
>>>
Eyes.'"
>>> "Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice
said, trying to feel
>>> interested.
>>>
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little
vexed.
>>> "That's what the name is called. The name really
is 'The Aged, Aged
>>> Man.'"
>>> "Then I
ought to have said 'That's what the song is calle d'?"
Alice
>>> corrected herself.
>>> "No you
oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways
and
>>> Means' but that's only what it's called, you
know!"
>>> "Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who
was by this time
>>> completely
bewildered.
>>> "I was coming to that," the Knight said.
"The song really
>> is 'A-sitting
>>> On a
Gate': and the tune's my own
invention."
>>>
>>>
Cheers
>>>
>>> --
Ian
>>>
>>>> -----Original
Message-----
>>>> From:
[log in to unmask] >>>>
[
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Dirk Kostrewa
>>>> Sent: 12 January 2009
10:52
>>>> To: CCP4BB
>>>> Subject:
Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor)
amplitude
>>>>
>>>> ... despite
these informations, I still prefer "structure factor
>>>>
amplitude", because it is the amplitude of the "structure
>>
factor" ...
>>>>
>>>> Best
regards,
>>>>
>>>>
Dirk.
>>>>
>>>> Am 12.01.2009 um
11:4 2 schrieb Ian
Tickle:
>>>>
>>>>> I was taught
'structure amplitude' - makes perfect
>> sense to me!
Why
>>>>> does 'structure amplitude' make any less
sense than 'structure
>>>>>
factor'?
>>>>>
>>>>> It also
clearly made sense to Phil Coppens, a
>> crystallographer
of
>>>>> considerable repute, see ITC Vol. B (2nd
Ed.), sect
>> 1.2., p.10: 'The
>>>>>
Structure Factor'. To quote the introduction to the
>> section:
"The
>>>>> 'structure factor' is the central concept
in structure
>> analysis by
>>>>>
diffraction methods. Its modulus is called the
'structure
>>>>>
amplitude'".
>>>>>
>>>>> Also
I did a 'Google vote' for the two terms. 'Structure
>>>>
amplitude'
>>>>> has
>>>>>
11300 hits. 'Structure factor amplitude' has only
>> 4750. So
all
>>>>> round I
>>>>> would
say that 'structure amplitude' wins by a
>> considerable
margin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> --
Ian
>>>> >
>>>>>>
-----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From:
[log in to unmask] >>>>>>
[
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Pavel Afonine
>>>>>> Sent: 11 January
2009 03:01
>>>>>> To: Ethan A
Merritt
>>>>>> Cc:
[log in to unmask] >>>>>>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] structure (factor)
amplitude
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
On 1/10/2009 5:14 PM, Ethan A Merritt
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On
Saturday 10 January 2009, Bernhard Rupp
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear
All,
>>>>>> >>>>>> I am getting
conflicting comments on the use of
>>>>>>
'structure factor amplitude'
>>>>>> vs.
just
>>>>>> 'structure
amplitude'
>>>>>> for
|F|.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ???
>>>>>> That's just...
odd.
>>>>> > >>>>>> |F| is the
amplitude of F.
>>>>>> But no way F is a
"structure".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
I agree. If F is a structure factor then |F| is a
structure
>>>>>> factor amplitude. "structure
amplitude" doesn't make
>> much
sense...
>>>>>>
Pavel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Disclaimer
>>>>> This communication is confidential
and may contain privileged
>>>>> information intended
solely for the named addressee(s).
>> It may
not
>>>>> be used or disclosed except for the purpose
for which
>> it has been
>>>>> sent. If
you are not the intended recipient you must
>> not
review,
>>>>> use, disclose, copy, distribute or take
any action in
>>>> reliance
upon
>>>>> it. If you have received this communication
in error,
>>>> please
notify
>>>>> Astex Therapeutics Ltd by
emailing
>>
[log in to unmask] >>>>>
and destroy all copies of the message and any attached
>>
documents.
>>>>> Astex Therapeutics Ltd monitors,
controls and protects all its
>>>>> messaging traffic
in compliance with its corporate email
>>>> policy.
The
>>>>> Company accepts no liability or
responsibility for any onward
>>>>> transmission or
use of emails and attachments having left
>>>> the
Astex
>>>>> Therapeutics domain. Unless expressly
stated, opinions
>> in this
>>>>>
message are those of the individual sender and not of
Astex
>>>>> Therapeutics Ltd. The recipient should
check this email
>> and any
>>>>>
attachments for the presence of computer viruses.
Astex
>>>> Therapeutics
>>>>> Ltd
accepts no liability for damage caused by any virus
>>>>
transmitted
>>>>> by this email. E-mail is susceptible
to data corruption,
>>>>> interception, unauthorized
amendment, and tampering, Astex
>>>>> Therapeutics Ltd
only send and receive e-mails on the basis
>>>> that
the
>>>>> Company is not liable for any such
alteration or any
>> consequences
>>>>>
thereof.
>>>>> Astex Therapeutics Ltd., Registered in
England at 436
>> Cambridge
>>>&g t;>
Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0QA under number
3751674
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
*******************************************************
>>>>
Dirk Kostrewa
>>>> Gene Center, A
5.07
>>>>
Ludwig-Maximilians-University
>>>> Feodor-Lynen-Str.
25
>>>> 81377 Munich
>>>>
Germany
>>>> Phone:
+49-89-2180-76845
>>>> Fax:
+49-89-2180-76999
>>>> E-mail:
[log in to unmask] >>>>
*******************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Disclaimer
>>> This communication is confidential and may
contain
>> privileged information intended solely for the
named
>> addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except
for the
>> purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not
the
>> intended recipient you must not review, use, disclose,
copy,
>> distribute or take any action in reliance upon it. If
you
>> have received this communication in error, please
notify
>> Astex Therapeutics Ltd by emailing
>>
[log in to unmask]
and=2 0destroy all copies of the
>> message and any attached
documents.
>>> Astex Therapeutics Ltd monitors, controls and
protects all
>> its messaging traffic in compliance with its
corporate email
>> policy. The Company accepts no liability or
responsibility
>> for any onward transmission or use of emails
and attachments
>> having left the Astex Therapeutics domain.
Unless expressly
>> stated, opinions in this message are those
of the individual
>> sender and not of Astex Therapeutics Ltd.
The recipient
>> should check this email and any attachments
for the presence
>> of computer viruses. Astex Therapeutics Ltd
accepts no
>> liability for damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this
>> email. E-mail is susceptible to data
corruption,
>> interception, unauthorized amendment, and
tampering, Astex
>> Therapeutics Ltd only send and receive
e-mails on the basis
>> that the Company is not liable for any
such alteration or any
>> consequences
thereof.
>>> Astex Therapeutics Ltd., Registered in England
at 436
>> Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0QA under
number 3751674
>>
>>
-->>
>> =====================================3
D==========================
>> * *
>> * 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
*
>> * *
>>
===============================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>
Disclaimer
> This communication is confidential and may contain
privileged > information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may
not > be used or disclosed ex cept for the purpose for which it has been
> sent. If you are not the intended recipient you must not review, >
use, disclose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon > it.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify > Astex
Therapeutics Ltd by emailing
[log in to unmask]
> and destroy all copies of the message and any attached
documents.
> Astex Therapeutics Ltd monitors, controls and
protects all its > messaging traffic in compliance with its corporate email
policy. The > Company accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward
> transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the Astex >
Therapeutics domain. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this > message
are those of the individual sender and not of Astex > Therapeutics Ltd. The
recipient should check this email and any > attachments for the presence of
computer viruses. Astex Therapeutics > Ltd accepts no liability for damage
caused by any virus transmitted > by this email. E-mail is susceptible to
data corruption, > interception, unauthorized amendment, and tampering,
Astex > Therapeutics Ltd only send and receive e-mails on the basis that
the > Company is not liable for any such alteration or any consequences
> thereof.
> Astex Therapeutics Ltd., Registered in England at
436 Cambridge > Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0QA under number
3751674
=0 A