✦ LIBER ✦

Interpreting the differences: A reply to Kaufman

✍ Scribed by Warren Umansky; Linda R. Cohen

Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 1981
Tongue: English
Weight: 127 KB
Volume: 18
Category: Article
ISSN: 0033-3085
DOI: 10.1002/1520-6807(198107)18:3<372::aid-pits2310180321>3.0.co;2-o

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis

Kaufrnan's critique of our article was based on a misunderstanding of our purpose and procedures. This reply clarifies those points and suggests

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

Interpreting the differences: A reply to

Interpreting the differences: A reply to Willson

✍ Stine Levy 📂 Article 📅 1983 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 116 KB

Interpreting the texts of nature and cul

Interpreting the texts of nature and culture: A reply to Jahoda

✍ Kenneth J. Gergen 📂 Article 📅 1986 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 487 KB

On eliminating the alternative interpret

On eliminating the alternative interpretations: a reply to Korman

✍ Robert L. Dipboye 📂 Article 📅 1977 🏛 Elsevier Science ⚖ 99 KB

Interpretation of the difference index a

Interpretation of the difference index as a guide to protein sequence identity

✍ Athel Cornish-Bowden 📂 Article 📅 1978 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 411 KB

The structural setting of the main doneg

The structural setting of the main donegal granite; a reply to comments on a recent interpretation

✍ D. H. W. Hutton 📂 Article 📅 2007 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 198 KB

I thank Dr. Berger for his comments on an earlier paper of mine (Hutton 1977) and welcome this opportunity to clarify and expand on various aspects of that work. Berger (1980) has divided the Creeslough Formation in its type area into a lower 'calcareous' unit (occurring in the SE) and an upper pel

Reply to “comment on direct consequences

Reply to “comment on direct consequences of the bond index statistical interpretation”

✍ Myriam S. de Giambiagi; Mario Giambiagi; Paulo Pitanga 📂 Article 📅 1987 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 164 KB

In this reply to the Comment by Jorge and Batista (Chem. Phys. Letters I38 (1987) 115) we show that the softness of an atom in a molecule is actually proportional to the atom's MO self-charge, as stated before.