emily_PDX said:Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
emily_PDX said:Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.
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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
emily_PDX said:Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
rachel_ABQ said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.