anders_CPH said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
anders_CPH said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemNurseAsh_DET 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 matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
NurseAsh_DET 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…
Coming at NurseAsh_DET’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.