Recent changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Track the most recent changes to the wiki on this page.

Recent changes options
Legend:
N
This edit created a new page (also see list of new pages)
m
This is a minor edit
b
This edit was performed by a bot
(±123)
The page size changed by this number of bytes
Show last 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 changes in last 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 30 days
Hide minor edits | Show bots | Hide anonymous users | Hide registered users | Hide my edits
Show new changes starting from 23:30, 18 November 2018
   

15 November 2018

  • (diff | hist) . . Question 5‎; 21:40 . . (+25). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(To what extent does/can/should the systems investigated influence the choice of a particular partition scheme?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 4‎; 21:39 . . (+25). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Are partition schemes subject to scientific Darwinism? If so, what is the influence of the sociological pressure of the community in the "natural selection" process?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 3‎; 21:39 . . (+25). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(How can partition scheme results be used to improve the clarity of the definitions of concepts?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 2‎; 21:39 . . (+25). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Does the adoption of a given partition scheme imply a set of more precise definitions of the underlying chemical concepts?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 1‎; 21:38 . . (+25). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Is the lack of precision in the definition of many chemical concepts one of the reasons for the coexistence of many partition schemes?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 9‎; 21:37 . . (+592). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(In the end, science is about experiments and real world, so, can any experiment or experimental data be used to prefer one partitioning scheme to the other?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 8‎; 21:36 . . (+397). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Is it possible to contemplate a unified partitioning scheme (let's call it the "standard model" of partitioning), proper for all applications in chemistry, in foreseeable future or even in principle?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 7‎; 21:34 . . (+474). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Is there any interest in developing common benchmarks and test sets for cross-validation of methods?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 6‎; 21:33 . . (+529). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Do we need more focused chemical validation of EDA methodology and descriptors/terms in general?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 5‎; 21:30 . . (+173). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(To what extent does/can/should the systems investigated influence the choice of a particular partition scheme?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 4‎; 21:29 . . (+337). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Are partition schemes subject to scientific Darwinism? If so, what is the influence of the sociological pressure of the community in the "natural selection" process?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 3‎; 21:28 . . (+445). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(How can partition scheme results be used to improve the clarity of the definitions of concepts?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 2‎; 21:27 . . (+180). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Does the adoption of a given partition scheme imply a set of more precise definitions of the underlying chemical concepts?)
  • (diff | hist) . . Question 1‎; 21:26 . . (+1,497). .2.152.59.222 (Talk)(Is the lack of precision in the definition of many chemical concepts one of the reasons for the coexistence of many partition schemes?)
  • (diff | hist) . . m Edition‎; 10:32 . . (-4). .Martin.rahm (Talk | contribs)(Nine Question on Energy Decomposition Analysis)
  • (diff | hist) . . m Question 2‎; 10:31 . . (-2). .Martin.rahm (Talk | contribs)
  • (diff | hist) . . m Edition‎; 10:31 . . (-2). .Martin.rahm (Talk | contribs)(Nine Question on Energy Decomposition Analysis)

14 November 2018