(more,most) economic on dirty math literature

General discussion about Elmer
Post Reply
teobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 07 Sep 2014, 10:41
Antispam: Yes

(more,most) economic on dirty math literature

Post by teobo »

Excuse me!
On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus ... sition_6.N I did _not find
http://www.kfs.org/jonathan/witt/t62en.html
6.2
The propositions of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo-propositions.

6.21
Mathematical propositions express no thoughts.
Having clear that once, I point on
http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/physics ... Manual.pdf
[3] Arnold D. N., Boffi D., and Falk R. S. Quadrilateral H(div) finite elements. SIAM Journal on Numerical
Analysis, 42:2429–2451, 2005.
[4] Arnold D. N., Falk R. S., and Winther R. Geometric decompositions and local bases for spaces of finite
element differential forms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 198:1660–1672,
2009.
in order to have an impression what they are saying -surely wrong- about BiCGStab,Krylov subspace methods. Used by my elmer application, btw. So, without knowing it, I need to respond to that my application bases on something unknowingly and -surely- wrong.
Right?
So they want me thieving for their doubtful stuff. Ok. (One might philosophize on literally any hidden motive a good deal)
I may not say that my annoyance is played.

So in the meantime I ask:
-If there is an (more,most) economic (hurray an open source copy of [4] for example cost 800€ and needs to be shipped I guess) way of learning about BiCGStab?
-And which is this way explicitly with who involved?
-In any case for an complete impression of the situation, I am interested in all that avoiding till even illegal practices. (such like thoughtlessly leaving a copy on universities toilet for reuse. - You wont do it in gated area, would you?)
-At least I would like to hear, if you think that there is considered to be a _problem within or not.?
-At least if you have personal experiences, whatever they are how you reach typically literature like this, please explicitly share it!

Any personal real world experiences fantasies or criminal stories on it welcome, I will never_ try it out again.

T I A
annier
Posts: 1168
Joined: 27 Aug 2013, 13:51
Antispam: Yes

Re: (more,most) economic on dirty math literature

Post by annier »

Hi Teobo,
Can you elaborately describe on "the flaws you point on the finite element approximation made in reference [4]"? In my opinion, FEM itself starts from an error and goes towards a way to minimize it or making a numerical result nearer to the physical situation. Unless there is a serious blunder, errors are not prone to criticism in FEM. However, i am not referring to the above context as i don't know anything about it. Please would you highlight more on this topic so that there can be a technical discussion on it?
Update:
So, with your following responses , i came to know that you are not talking at all about the flaws . We all are thankful to Douglas N. Arnold (and coworkers) for their valuable contributions in the dimensions of finite element methods and we (as Elmer users) are indebted towards them.



Yours Sincerely,
Anil Kunwar
Last edited by annier on 04 Dec 2015, 06:24, edited 5 times in total.
Anil Kunwar
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice
teobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 07 Sep 2014, 10:41
Antispam: Yes

on the discrimationless accessibity of advised math literatu

Post by teobo »

annier wrote:Hi Teobo,
Can you elaborately describe on "the flaws you point on the finite element approximation made in reference [4]"? In my opinion, FEM itself starts from an error and goes towards a way to minimize it or making a numerical result nearer to the physical situation. Unless there is a serious blunder, errors are not prone to criticism in FEM. However, i am not referring to the above context as i don't know anything about it. Please would you highlight more on this topic so that there can be a technical discussion on it?


Yours Sincerely,
Anil Kunwar
Hi Anil,
I was just moaning and joking on it thereby. So do not ask what for he needs a ladder on the toilet, always.
There is no flaw in it, in a narrower sense. Maybe there is no solution for eternal justice, maybe there should be none ..

The weak point in broader sense is that the information of [4] probably wont come to the user's head. Well the access could be facilitated better. One could hold a discrimination speech about it, yes. Useless. Maybe state of Finland buys the sources and puts them under public domain next time. For example.
Something probably outside our scope certainly.
Excuse for moroning

Edit:
One could interpret Wittgenstein`s teaching of knowledge, namely to throw something away and therefore to get it first, as a pleading for free source. Technically spoken this is its advantage and its principle, which are then severely diminished when "stairs" are missing.
You asked me to be explicit, here I stress something that is substantial and may add that Wittgensteins teaching in the field of non-sense and senselessnesses is even received afaik in today's linguistics.
That is the pleading for finding of amends
Last edited by teobo on 26 Nov 2015, 00:39, edited 1 time in total.
teobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 07 Sep 2014, 10:41
Antispam: Yes

Re: (more,most) economic on dirty math literature

Post by teobo »

Hi Anil once more,
so how would you_ then typically access [4]? Recommend to access?
Tia
mzenker
Posts: 1999
Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 11:49
Location: Germany

Re: (more,most) economic on dirty math literature

Post by mzenker »

Hi,

to get the article [4], you can
1. buy it here, it costs $35.95. Quite expensive IMO for a 12-page paper, but if one absolutely needs the information...
2. go to a university library. They will either have the journal on paper, and you can make a copy. Or they will order it for you, either on paper or as scan. Or they have access to the journal via a terminal, and you can download the article from there.

I agree that scientific information should be in the open access. Maybe this will happen one day, but in the meantime, we have to do with what we have now...

BTW, question to the Elmer team: Is the information referred to in the manual accessible elsewhere, or is it really just a result in this particular paper?

Matthias
teobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 07 Sep 2014, 10:41
Antispam: Yes

Re: (more,most) economic on dirty math literature

Post by teobo »

Thank you,
very interesting. And a big help on how to proceed finding the literature.
However, I have to admit, that I was wrong in (at least!) two aspects.
1. There is a way to download that free of charge: http://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.p ... 92#p106715
Do not know exactly which is this licence condition, maybe it is that unfair. At least not that unfair as supposed.
http://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.p ... 92#p106715
2. Surely I took the bibliography from the wrong chapter. :roll:
The real papers searched for are these:
[3]Richard Barrett et al. Templates for the Solution of Linear Systems: Building Blocks for Iterative Methods.
SIAM, 1993.
[4] R.W. Freund. A transpose-free quasi-minimal residual algorithm for non-hermitian linear systems. SIAM
J. Sci. Comput., 14:470–482, 1993.
[3] is freely available.
However [4] costs 25 €.
Maybe a good exercise for frequent university libraries .. ;)
annier
Posts: 1168
Joined: 27 Aug 2013, 13:51
Antispam: Yes

Re: (more,most) economic on dirty math literature

Post by annier »

Hi Teobo,
with your above responses , i came to know that you are not talking at all on the flaws in any aspects related to the literatures . We all are thankful to Douglas N. Arnold (and coworkers) for their valuable contributions in the dimensions of finite element methods and we (as Elmer users) are indebted towards them.


Yours Sincerely,
Anil Kunwar
Anil Kunwar
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice
Post Reply