wendy_avl said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement with wendy_avl. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
wendy_avl said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsNurseAsh_DET said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.
NurseAsh_DET said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.