bri_stats said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
bri_stats said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
bri_stats has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
bri_stats said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
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 BiochemFrom 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.
Reporting back.
Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.