The orbit rigidity matrix of a symmetric framework

A number of recent papers have studied when symmetry causes frameworks on a graph to become infinitesimally flexible, or stressed, and when it has no impact. A number of other recent papers have studied special classes of frameworks on generically rigid graphs which are finite mechanisms. Here we introduce a new tool, the orbit matrix, which connects these two areas and provides a matrix representation for fully symmetric infinitesimal flexes, and fully symmetric stresses of symmetric frameworks. The orbit matrix is a true analog of the standard rigidity matrix for general frameworks, and its analysis gives important insights into questions about the flexibility and rigidity of classes of symmetric frameworks, in all dimensions. With this narrower focus on fully symmetric infinitesimal motions, comes the power to predict symmetry-preserving finite mechanisms - giving a simplified analysis which covers a wide range of the known mechanisms, and generalizes the classes of known mechanisms. This initial exploration of the properties of the orbit matrix also opens up a number of new questions and possible extensions of the previous results, including transfer of symmetry based results from Euclidean space to spherical, hyperbolic, and some other metrics with shared symmetry groups and underlying projective geometry.Comment: 41 pages, 12 figure

Ten Misconceptions from the History of Analysis and Their Debunking

The widespread idea that infinitesimals were "eliminated" by the "great triumvirate" of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass is refuted by an uninterrupted chain of work on infinitesimal-enriched number systems. The elimination claim is an oversimplification created by triumvirate followers, who tend to view the history of analysis as a pre-ordained march toward the radiant future of Weierstrassian epsilontics. In the present text, we document distortions of the history of analysis stemming from the triumvirate ideology of ontological minimalism, which identified the continuum with a single number system. Such anachronistic distortions characterize the received interpretation of Stevin, Leibniz, d'Alembert, Cauchy, and others.Comment: 46 pages, 4 figures; Foundations of Science (2012). arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1108.2885 and arXiv:1110.545

Guidelines and Recommendations on the Use of Higher OrderFinite Elements for Bending Analysis of Plates

This paper compares and evaluates various plate finite elements to analyse the static response of thick and thin plates subjected to different loading and boundary conditions. Plate elements are based on different assumptions for the displacement distribution along the thickness direction. Classical (Kirchhoff and Reissner-Mindlin), refined (Reddy and Kant), and other higher-order displacement fields are implemented up to fourth-order expansion. The Unified Formulation UF by the first author is used to derive finite element matrices in terms of fundamental nuclei which consist of 3 × 3 arrays. The MITC4 shear-locking free type formulation is used for the FE approximation. Accuracy of a given plate element is established in terms of the error vs. thickness-to-length parameter. A significant number of finite elements for plates are implemented and compared using displacement and stress variables for various plate problems. Reduced models that are able to detect the 3D solution are built and a Best Plate Diagram (BPD) is introduced to give guidelines for the construction of plate theories based on a given accuracy and number of terms. It is concluded that the UF is a valuable tool to establish, for a given plate problem, the most accurate FE able to furnish results within a certain accuracy range. This allows us to obtain guidelines and recommendations in building refined elements in the bending analysis of plates for various geometries, loadings, and boundary conditions

A Burgessian critique of nominalistic tendencies in contemporary mathematics and its historiography

We analyze the developments in mathematical rigor from the viewpoint of a Burgessian critique of nominalistic reconstructions. We apply such a critique to the reconstruction of infinitesimal analysis accomplished through the efforts of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass; to the reconstruction of Cauchy's foundational work associated with the work of Boyer and Grabiner; and to Bishop's constructivist reconstruction of classical analysis. We examine the effects of a nominalist disposition on historiography, teaching, and research.Comment: 57 pages; 3 figures. Corrected misprint