The University of Pune and Doing a PhD in Its Engineering Faculty (Part 2), and the Consequent Matters

This is to make it public that yesterday I had an unusually big issue with my father—the person who, apart from being my father, also is, essentially, my financial supporter as of today—because I have been having no job for years by now. The fight was over money. It has been falling short for months. Yesterday, it was over the day-before-yesterday when I was not being given money for a drink of wine for relaxation—a well deserved one after about a week of continuous work doing course-ware and code development for 12+ hours a day. I was not being given money not primarily because in my parent’s eyes I did not deserve being given some, or even primarily because it was an issue of money per say, but because, primarily, my father does not drink and so both my parents think that it as an absolutely bad thing to do so. Despite their externally agreeable ways, they remain inwardly rigidly fixed about this particular opinion—one that is also abundantly shared by religion. But, of course, my parents were even unwilling to name the issue in any of these terms—e.g. that it’s for wine that they can’t give me money. At that point, this was all that I wanted them to admit. But they didn’t. Then, it turned sour the next day, i.e. yesterday. Yes, it did turn bitter enough that I called up my PhD guide and let him have a slice of the atmosphere prevailing at home—money issues and all. And, yes, it—and the reasons behind it—are still bitter enough that I can make it all public.

This is also to make it public that COEP alumni (including the rich ones in the USA) do know about this situation and haven’t done a thing about it.

This is also to make it public that my guide had certainly asked me whether I wanted a job at COEP, but also had, in a way, discouraged me by recounting in a cautious way how bad it can and does get at COEP. In any case, as is human nature, he was cautious about making that offer so long as he himself was at COEP, but no longer is so, once he is out of it—now, he supports my application at COEP whole-heartedly.

This is also to make it public that both Mr. Sharad Pawar and Mr. Prataprao Pawar knew my grandfather (i.e. father’s father) personally. In fact it was their mother Sharadabai, known simply as “Baai,” who knew my grandparents well—I mean, well enough that she had come to stay for a few days with my grandmother at the time that father got married. That was over 50 years back. I suppose they both know my father personally. It is only in this fourth generation that I don’t any particularly care to get to know Ajit “Dada” Pawar, Abhijit Pawar, or Supriya Sule, or Vijayatai Patil, or others from their family. (Our ancestral town is near Baramati—a place that I had visited only for a *cumulative* period of 2 *hours* until I was into my 40s. Since then, of course, now we frequent it pretty often.)

This is also to make it public that Mr. Prataprao Pawar sits on the Board of Governors for COEP—the place where I was denied a job this year. (The reason was that the esteemed selection committee thought that I was… [reason withheld on request (LOL!)].)

This is also to make it public that Mr. Prataprao Pawar runs Sakal, who have been running photographs and news items concerning me in that special “media” sort of way for the past two days. One photograph yesterday (the Slumdog Millionnaire one) was chosen to have in it a woman who, in that particular photograph, looks remarkably similar to a marriage proposal of a girl that we have received (for me) and had begun seriously considering just last week. (The girl’s last name also happens to be Pawar—but not related to Sharad Pawar’s family by any stretch of imagination.) Such a lowly action on Sakal’s part had followed—not preceded—a similar action by “Yahoo!,” who have been “following” me up in an unusually stronger manner (and somewhat against me) for about ten days by now. I suppose this reflects some change in the power-structure in the USA administration and their coming to terms. (Until Sakal began targetting me, I had thought that Yahoo!’s action could be explained in reference to yet another behind-the-scenes bid by Microsoft to buy them…. You see, a lot of Indians work in both these companies—Muslim or otherwise—and it is easy for an Indian to set up a connection to follow up someone like me. Of course, any American could do it, or anyone else too, but I was just stating the obvious—how easier it would be for an Indian proper.)

This is also to make it public that I have, right now, applied to I^2IT, an institute being run by Mr. Chhabria (finance—he is not educated himself but seems cultured) and Mr. Vijay Bhatkar (the founder and the mentor). I suppose Mr. Prataprao Pawar has been having friendships with both of them too. The attractive feature at I^2IT is that I can become a Professor even without having a doctorate degree. And, I have the requisite background, experience, expertise, and research interests. They also have collaboration with LawrenceTech, the American university that bestowed a PhD on Mr. Sharad Pawar a while back.

This is also to make it public that I could easily qualify for jobs in academic sectors paying up to (or in excess of) Rs. 1 Lakh/month only if I had a doctorate.

This is also to make it public that only last month Mr. Sharad Pawar attended as chief guest the Convocation ceremony of the University of Pune, obviously on request of, among others, Mr. Narendra Jadhav (Vice-Chancellor) and Mr. Pandit Vidyasagar (Director, BCUD—and, sorry, I don’t know which one is his first name and which one is the last). Thus, apparently Mr. Sharad Pawar, who had toured USA alongwith Mr. Jadhav in early 2000’s, is unable to influence Mr. Narendra Jadhav to a sufficient extent that a examination panel could be appointed for my PhD defense—a matter otherwise routine anyway, not needing the intervention of a Union cabinet minister.

This is also to make it public that Mr. Narendra Jadhav and Mr. Pandit Vidyasagar grant no audience either to me (very obvious, isn’t it? What is a mere student even if he claims a first in 100+ years in his thesis?) or even to my guide, Mr. Kajale—despite us having visited the campus offices of the University of Pune in person—separately, and together (me with Mr. Kajale).

This is also to make it public that Mr. Prataprao Pawar himself was instrumental, in a way, in requesting an admission for me at COEP (*after* IIT Madras and IISc Bangalore had confirmed it in two separate departments, and way way *after* I had already published a paper some 1.5+ years before that.)

This is also to make it public that, in this way, the actions of both COEP and University of Pune might seem a little bit out of the ordinary, considering their acceptance and cooperation in the past.

This is also to make it public that I *have* explicitly identified Ayn Rand’s Objectivism as the main intellectual basis for some of the by-positions that I do advance in my PhD thesis—the positions that I had kept only implicit in my conference papers.

This is also to make it public that politicians from Congress (I) are, as a rule, likely to be at least somewhat worse, certainly not better, than the NCP politicians I have mentioned here. This is also to make it public that those from BJP, Shiv Sena (etc.) are not even worth mentioning in any such a context—by and large (though, some exceptions would certainly exist in each such a party too.)

This is also to make it public that I still believe Mr. Sharad Pawar could and should have been a PM of India—my position has nothing to do with favors I do or do not receive from Pawar brothers / family.

This is also to make it public that Mr. Sharad Pawar also looks after the consumer court-related portfolio, and that I am contemplating legal action against the university of Pune (and possibly, some of its topmost officials), but that I do not advocate him for the PM’s post because I expect favorable treatment from his consumer court-related ministry machinery or so.

This is also to make it public that I have conveyed this decision in suitably bitter terms to my guide, Mr. Kajale—namely, that they all get two weeks to act in a serious manner or else I will go to courts or seek other measures.

This is also to make it public that if you wish to help either me, or Mr. Narendra Jadhav and Mr. Pandit Vidyasagar, or Mr. Prataprao Pawar, Mr. Sharad Pawar, and Mr. Abhijeet Pawar, or my parents, feel free to do so. If you do help me, I have a request: Refrain 100% from advising what I should and should not do or have done or what you would have done if you were in my place.

Thank you for reading. If you do not understand it, do not spread vicious rumours at the least. But if you do understand it, then, no, despite my pride, I won’t mind if you do something about it (and that’s because my pride is rational.)

Go ahead, you all (including the BoG of COEP, I^2IT, and the Pawar family) have two weeks. I will take my next step on March 9, 2009. (And my own workstyle is unlike that of the University of Pune or of COEP.)

Is this, too, getting too angry, Mr. Prataprao Pawar?

And, sure enough, Pawar family can now remember at least one Jadhav for some reasons other than astrology, right? (My grandfather was an expert astrologer. So am I. The difference is, he believed in it, and I don’t.)

In the meanwhile, keep off my life, Anand Agashe, Yamaji Malkar, and co. (And, also, IE and ToI. And, Yahoo! and other Americans!!) Else, it would be time to begin calling you “bustards” in public as well.

FEM Is Not a Local Method (and It Isn’t Global Either)

In the literature, FEM has sometimes been characterized as a local approach, but IMO this needs to be corrected.

The piecewise continuous trial-functions of FEM can be looked at from two different viewpoints:

(i) If FEM is seen as an expansion method making use of basis functions, then naturally the comparison is with the Fourier-theoretic approaches (and all the derived or consequent or similar ones). The basis functions for the latter are global in the sense they have supports all over the domain. This, indeed, is unlike the limited (piecewise) support of the FEM trial-functions.

(ii) Yet, on the other hand, if FEM is seen an integral approach, i.e. an approach which is based either on functionals or on domain integrals of the residuals, then notice that either of these two enjoys support over a finite region—not infinitesimal. Consequently, FEM cannot really be said to be a local approach. Compare it, for instance, with FDM. Or, with the ideas of the differential calculus per say.

I therefore object to characterizations of FEM as a local approach. Also for its characterization as a global approach. I believe that FEM is “midway,” really speaking.

As a relevant aside, also consider here that, in structural FEM for instance, the potential energy (and its stationarity) *is* globally defined, and yet, the displacements are defined only in a piecewise manner—i.e. over only sub-intervals of the overall domain.

I, therefore, suggest that a term like “sub-global” (or “supra-local”) might be used to characterize FEM.  And also, other methods like FEM.

In between the two candidates considered here, the first (“sub-global”) appears a more complete description as compared to the second (“supra-local.”) The first also sounds more honest and less pseudo-intellectual. (A third candidate, viz. “ultra-local,” seems to imply exactly the opposite of the intended meaning: it seems to doubly emphasize the local nature. Hence, it is unsuitable.)

I, thus, vote for the “sub-global” term.

Other methods where this term becomes relevant and applicable include, for example, BEM. Also MD, wherein, despite the use of point-particles, the potential itself is not a point-phenomenon (just the way it also does not have infinite support due to the cut-off). As such, MD, too, too should be characterized as a “sub-global” method.

BTW, this issue is neither obscurely academic nor pedantic. … Here, ask yourself why quantum entanglement is at all considered to be so “counter-intuitive” or “dramatic” (or gets so hotly debated/discussed).

—–

Well thought-out corrections to my position would be welcome, as also any really relevant complementary observation(s).

Thanks in advance.

The Fundamental Physical Bases of the WR Approach (and, Consequently, of FEM) in General

It has been quite some time (more than 1.5 years) that I had touched upon the topic of the physical bases of FEM in general, and of the general weighted residual (WR) approach in particular, at iMechanica (see here).

The position I then took was that there is no known physical basis at all for the WR approach—despite its loving portrayals in mathematical terms, or its popularity.

Further, I had also expressed (at iMechanica and elsewhere) that a basis in physical principles existed for FEM only in a rather limited sense: wherever the energy interpretation was available for the model. (Note, this too is already at variance with what some of the authors have written in books.)

I have not yet changed my opinions.

But, still, it is easy to miss things.

And, it is easy to teach wrong things to one’s students too—especially if doing so suits one’s own professional goals, research programs, reputation, funding applications in the pipeline, greencard/citizenship applications, or a precisely similar set of things for one’s PhD advisor/professional mentor/current superior/group/past alumni associates (sentimental in nature or otherwise).

Nevertheless, I would consider myself immoral if I did not check things out before proceeding to profess or teach them (or create some impression in my students’ minds about them—positive or negative).Accordingly, here we go.

Please let me know if anyone has been able to unearth or discover any physical basis whatsoever—i.e. any explanation in terms of any known (or newly discovered) physical principles—over the past 1.5 years (or anytime earlier) whereby the weighted residual approach can be said to possess a fundamental physical interpretation.

And, thereby, also FEM, in its more general “avatar.”

Thanks in advance.