kevin_tulsa said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
kevin_tulsa said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
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.
kevin_tulsa said:I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.
EndoResFellow said:The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.
Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.