🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec15.092213@roper.mc.ti.com> W. Donald Rolph:
> The issue remains the shape or approximation functions. Chooses identical
> shape funcitons and FVM and FEA are identical. Choose bad ones, and both
> fail.
> Fundamentally all numerical procedures for PDE approximation have a basic
> underlying comonality: minimizing error in the approximation funcitons with
> respect to the actual solution.

Reading your postings, I can conclude that you are obviously well informed
about the Finite Element Method. But I can also conclude that you are
quite ignorant about Finite Volume and Finite Difference methods.

The idea that FD and/or FV are just a sub-class of FEA is distributed by
Zienkiewicz, Oden and others, and it has NOTHING to do with reality.

It's the same as saying that men and women are the same. They are NOT.
Due to their differences, they can have children. Due to the differences
between Finite Elements and Finite Differences / Volumes, there could be
progress in numerical methods. But when I take a look into those huge
volumes, everything appears the same as fifteen years ago ... Yaaaawn.

But at least we can _visualize_ our common numerical ignorance now,
with great graphical toolboxes like AVS.

> We realy need to get away from these parochial battles over differences
> in what are in fact identical procedures.

YES, we need to get away from these parochial battles. And NO, they are
not "in fact identical procedures". Let me not advertise again my work
on "Unified Numerical Approximations".

Selfishness is our ONLY problem, even in science & technology.
-- 
* Han de Bruijn; Applications&Graphics | "A little bit of Physics * No
* TUD Computing Centre; P.O. Box 354   | would be NO idleness in  * Oil
* 2600 AJ  Delft; The Netherlands.     | Mathematics" (HdB).      * for
* E-mail: Han.deBruijn@RC.TUDelft.NL --| Fax: +31 15 78 37 87 ----* Blood