wendy_avl said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
wendy_avl said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardschris_chi24 said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.
chris_chi24 said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.