crystallographic point groups (Re: NAQT ICT: Div I final team ranks)

The protest...

(Before going into detail I want (speaking for myself) to thank R. 
Robert Hentzel for his thoroughness, and also to thank David Farris 
for handling the protest as best a protesting player can: Remaining 
calm, courteous, and deferential throughout, he was able not only to 
explain very precisely what his contention was but also to suggest 
useful research angles.  If there were handbook on how lodge a 
protest with class, this would be a prime example.  Anyhow, those 
kudos -- and my explaining of my part of the research -- were what 
motivated me to post this myself rather than deferring to R.)

Berkeley A and Michigan A faced each other in the first round of 
seeded play, as #2 versus #3.  Pending protest resolution, the clock 
ran out in the second half with Michigan A ahead, 300-295.

If you don't care about mathematics, the short version is that after 
some research, we concluded that a question needed to be thrown out 
and replaced off the clock.  By the time we concluded this, with all 
other results in, it was clear that this one question would not only 
decide the match but also literally settle which team would be in the 
final.  Both teams strongly suggested that, under the circumstances, 
playing a full game would be much more equitable than letting one 
question determine their fate.  They did indeed play that game; 
Berkeley won.

(For what it's worth, Berkeley A had also defeated Michigan A in a 
Saturday morning match that was very high-scoring and neither close 
nor a blowout.)

The question (typos, if any, are mine from retyping it):
---
They can be designated by Hermann-Mauguin [MAW-gan] symbols, like 2-
slash-m, or Schoenflies symbols, like [T sub h]. While mathematics 
permits an infinite number of them, the three-dimensional structures 
of crystals forbid (*) symmetry axes of order higher than 6, leaving 
just 32. For 10 points--name these collections of operations that 
leave at least one atom in a molecule, or a single point in space, 
unchanged.

answer: (crystallographic) _point group_s (accept _space group_ 
before "infinite"; do not accept "crystal class")
---

A Michigan player took an early neg with "tesselation"; once the 
question was complete, a Berkeley player rang in and 
said "crystallographic groups."  On being prompted, he 
said "symmetry" and was ruled incorrect.

Berkeley's claim was that the answer "crystallographic group" was 
sufficiently complete and correct that it should have been accepted 
rather than prompted.  Michigan's counterclaim was that "tesselation" 
was correct at the point of the buzz; if their protest was accepted 
then Berkeley's protest would be moot.

The protest committee decided to send teams to their next round and 
do research on whether "crystallograhpic group" would be acceptable.  
In practice that fell to me, using the stat room's Internet 
connection, at the temporary expense of updating results/stats.

For various (obvious) reasons I wanted to get both a conclusive 
answer and as quick as possible an answer.

If "crystallographic groups" were commonly used as a synonym 
for "point groups", I supposed that there would exist a resource 
listing the two as equivalent.  If there is, I was unable to find it.

On the other hand, suppose the term "crystallographic groups" 
referred not only to "crystallographic point groups" but also to 
groups that don't fit the clues of the question.  I imagined that I 
could find a counterexample -- say, a paper that referred 
to "crystallographic groups" with an "axis of symmetry" higher than 
6.  Having found such a paper (it seemed to treat "crystallographic 
groups" as a synonym of "space groups"), I was prepared to deny 
Berkeley's protest.

R., wanting better closure than that, did a Google search that the 
Berkeley team had suggested ( http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=32+%22crystallographic+group%22 ).  
Although I had run this same search and given up after finding 
nothing useful in the first few links, R. delved deeper and found 
reasonable, if not overwhelming, evidence that some mathematicians do 
simply say "crystallographic group" rather than "crystallographic 
point group."

Discuss as motivated... :-)

(Also feel free to send feedback to feedback_at_... about anything 
ICT-related.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST