letters to the editor\(\def\hfill{\hskip 5em}\def\hfil{\hskip 3em}\def\eqno#1{\hfil {#1}}\)

Journal logoFOUNDATIONS
ADVANCES
ISSN: 2053-2733

Response to Olczak's comment on Probability density functions of the average and difference intensities of Friedel opposites

CROSSMARK_Color_square_no_text.svg

aSchool of Chemistry, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel, and bDépartement de chimie minérale, analytique et appliquée, Faculté des sciences, Université de Genève, Switzerland
*Correspondence e-mail: ushmueli@post.tau.ac.il

(Received 27 January 2011; accepted 2 March 2011; online 30 March 2011)

A response is given to to Olczak's comment about the discussion of probability density functions (p.d.f.s) and simulations of Friedel intensity differences in Shmueli & Flack [Acta Cryst. (2010), A66, 669–675].

The recently published article by Shmueli & Flack (2010)[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.] deals with average and difference reduced intensities of [|F({\bf h})|^{2}] and [|F(-{\bf h})|^{2}], known as Friedel opposites. First, well established trigonometric series of these quantities are re-derived and normalized and their probability density functions (hereafter: p.d.f.s), admitting any chemical composition and not relying in any way on the central limit theorem, are derived for the space group P1. This derivation rests on an assumption which is the basis of major grievances of Olczak (2011), to which we shall respond.

Consider the expressions for the structure factor and for its squared magnitude:

[ F({\bf h})=\textstyle\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}f_{j}\exp(2\pi i{\bf h}\cdot{\bf r}_{j})\eqno(1) ]

and

[ |F({\bf h})|^{2}=\textstyle\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\textstyle\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}f_{j}\,f_{k}^{*}\exp(2\pi i{\bf h}\cdot{\bf R}_{jk}), \eqno(2)]

where [{\bf R}_{jk}={\bf r}_{j}-{\bf r}_{k}] and the (complex) atomic scattering factor contains the displacement parameters and those of resonant scattering. Obviously, the argument of the exponential in equation (2)[link] will also appear in the expressions for the average and difference reduced intensities, normalized or not.

The fractional part of the scalar product [{\bf h}\cdot{\bf r}_{j}] in equation (1)[link] is assumed in various applications to direct methods and intensity statistics to be uniformly distributed in the [0, 1] interval. This assumption has a number-theoretical justification (e.g. Weyl, 1916[Weyl, H. (1916). Math. Ann. 77, 313-352.]) and can be used if all the atoms (and especially the heavy atoms) are in general positions. Olczak (2011)[Olczak, A. (2011). Acta Cryst. A67, 315-317.] calls it assumption B.

In our derivations of the p.d.f.s of the normalized average and difference reduced intensities we naturally came across the scalar product [{\bf h}\cdot{\bf R}_{jk}] shown in equation (2)[link]. We assumed that the inter­atomic vectors [{\bf R}_{jk}={\bf r}_{j}-{\bf r}_{k}] are in the general positions of the Patterson unit cell and hence that the fractional part of the scalar product [{\bf h}\cdot{\bf R}_{jk}={\bf h}\cdot({\bf r}_{j}-{\bf r}_{k})] is uniformly distributed in the [0, 1] interval. The overriding advantage of this approach is that it allows p.d.f.s to be obtained in analytical form, but of course they needed to be subjected to several tests to establish their usefulness (see Shmueli & Flack, 2010[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.]). The text of Shmueli & Flack (2010)[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.] makes it clear that it is being used as an assumption (approximation) in need of further verification.

According to Olczak (2011)[Olczak, A. (2011). Acta Cryst. A67, 315-317.], the use of this assumption (i) is inconsistent with the `commonly used' assumption B, (ii) the result obtained from our calculation `loses its physical sense' and (iii) our results `are interesting from the mathematical point of view but not related to any crystal structure'.

Having derived the p.d.f.s, we performed two runs of tests: First, we compared the p.d.f.s with simulated histograms recalculated from a hypothetical structure. The results, shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Shmueli & Flack (2010)[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.], display very good to good agreement of the histograms with the p.d.f.s. This mainly confirmed the correctness of the expressions.

However, a p.d.f. is physically meaningful if it agrees with a distribution related to experimental data, and a crucial test was indicated. We therefore compared the p.d.f.s with histograms recalculated from the parameters of a solved P1 structure (CSD: YIDYIF). The results, shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of Shmueli & Flack (2010)[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.], display qualitatative agreement and it is concluded that the p.d.f.s are useful.

Objection (i) of Olczak (2011)[Olczak, A. (2011). Acta Cryst. A67, 315-317.] would preclude assuming anything during one's scientific work, and is therefore not reasonable. Objection (ii) referring to results that lose physical sense is taken care of by Figs. 3 and 4 of Shmueli & Flack (2010)[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.] and his comment (iii) is flattering but incorrect, as shown above. We have not been able to derive analytical forms of the p.d.f.s without assuming a uniform distribution of the fractional parts of the scalar products [{\bf h}\cdot {\bf R}_{jk}]. On the other hand, it is possible to undertake simulations similar to those described in Shmueli & Flack (2010)[Shmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669-675.] in which, instead of [{\textstyle{1\over 2}}N(N-1)] independent vectors, one takes N-1 independent vectors and evaluates the others from these. This concludes our response.

References

First citationOlczak, A. (2011). Acta Cryst. A67, 315–317.  Web of Science CrossRef IUCr Journals Google Scholar
First citationShmueli, U. & Flack, H. D. (2010). Acta Cryst. A66, 669–675.  Web of Science CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Google Scholar
First citationWeyl, H. (1916). Math. Ann. 77, 313–352.  CrossRef Google Scholar

© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.

Journal logoFOUNDATIONS
ADVANCES
ISSN: 2053-2733
Follow Acta Cryst. A
Sign up for e-alerts
Follow Acta Cryst. on Twitter
Follow us on facebook
Sign up for RSS feeds