Numerical solution of the three‐dimensional parabolic equation with an integral condition

Developement of numerical methods for obtaining approximate solutions to the three dimensional diffusion equation with an integral condition will be carried out. The numerical techniques discussed are based on the fully explicit (1,7) finite difference technique and the fully implicit (7,1) finite difference method and the (7,7) Crank‐Nicolson type finite difference formula. The new developed methods are tested on a problem. Truncation error analysis and numerical examples are used to illustrate the accuracy of the new algorithms. The results of numerical testing show that the numerical methods based on the finite difference techniques discussed in the present article produce good results. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Numer Methods Partial Differential Eq 18: 193–202, 2002; DOI 10.1002/num.1040     

Structural hierarchy of rock masses and the mechanisms of its formation

The formation mechanisms for the structural hierarchy in geological media are discussed. It is shown that the formation of such a hierarchy is caused by certain external and internal circumstances. The first ones consist in the fact that, because of external actions, the Earth’s poles continuously execute the translational and rotational motions responsible for a regular structure of rock fracture and for the appearance of the scale factor √2. The second ones consist in the fact that, under the action of many random factors and because of external actions, during the formation of geological media there appear dissipative structures and, hence, some self-similar fractal structures are formed.     

Reply to Nathan: How to reconstruct the causal argument

Nicholas Nathan tries to resist the current version of the causal argument for sense-data in two ways. First he suggests that, on what he considers to be the correct re-construction of the argument, it equivocates on the sense of proximate cause. Second he defends a form of disjunctivism, by claiming that there might be an extra mechanism involved in producing veridical hallucination, that is not present in perception. I argue that Nathan’s reconstruction of the argument is not the appropriate one, and that, properly interpreted, the argument does not equivocate on proximate cause. Furthermore, I claim that his postulation of a modified mechanism for hallucinations is implausibly ad hoc.