The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
One thing that is still open after sean_dublin’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
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 Biochemraj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
raj_cambridge said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.