M.Eng survey remarks: rant on exams in grad studies

August 28, 2016 Incoherent ramblings

I was asked to rate my satisfaction of aspects of the M.Eng program I’m taking, so took the opportunity to rant about the insanity of exams:

“As a professional, I find that Exam based courses are very artificial, and not terribly meaningful. As an undergrad I did not question this practice, but had forgotten about those days. It was a rather rude shock to see this dark ages practise still in use for graduate studies.

Nowhere in a professional context does it make sense to try to memorize enough content that you can barf out half-ass material sufficient to pass examination questions, or attempt to gain maximum marks in a minimum amount of time. Professional work needs to be complete and accurate. Mistakes cause millions of dollars, and get people fired.

It makes no sense to take any examination, and not be given the opportunity to see the marked exam content. One ought to have the chance to review that material, correcting all deficiencies in one’s understanding. If mistakes are made in a professional context, there is a feedback cycle, where root causes are addressed. This is completely missing from the brain dead process of final exams.

Thankfully, not all the graduate courses I took still used the childish approach of grading based on examinations, but enough did that it was annoying. The aim should not be to produce a mark, but to produce full understanding of the subject material, and demonstrate the ability to apply that material.”

Shipping with DHL. They will screw you, but not quite as bad as UPS.

August 27, 2016 Incoherent ramblings, Uncategorized , , , , ,

I previously complained about UPS customs clearing charges that I was slammed with receiving back some of my own goods.

Basically, the Canadian government grants shipping companies the right to extort receivers at the point of customs clearing. Canada might add a few cents or a buck or two of tax, but the shipping company is then able to add fees that are orders of magnitude higher than the actual taxes.

I actually stopped buying anything from the United States because of this, and have been buying from Europe and India instead, where I had not yet gotten blasted with customs clearing fees for the items I’ve been buying (usually textbooks).

However, it appears that my luck has run out.  Here’s the newest example, with a $15 dollar clearing fee that DHL added onto about a dollar of tax:

IMG_20160827_095043195 (1)

Note that I did not pick the shipping company.  That was selected by the book seller (one of the abebooks.com resellers).

For $1.17 of taxes, DHL has charged me $14.75 of fees, all for the right to allow Canada revenue to steal from me.  To add insult to injury, DHL is allowed to charge GST for their extortion service, so I end up paying an additional $3.09 (close to 3x the initial tax amount).  The value of the book + shipping that I purchased was only $23.30!

Aside: Why is the GST on $14.75 that high?  I thought that’s a 13% tax, so shouldn’t it be $1.92?

I’ve found some instructions that explain some of the black magic required to do my own customs clearing:

One of the first steps is to find the CBSA office that I can submit such a clearing form to.  I can narrow that search down to province, but some of these offices are restricted to specific purposes, and it isn’t obvious which of these offices I should use.  For example the one at Buttonville airport appears to be restricted to handling just the cargo that arrives there.

I wonder if there are any local resellers that import used and cheap textbooks in higher quantities and then resell them locally (taking the customs clearing charge only once per shipment)?

Electric field due to spherical shell

August 24, 2016 math and physics play , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Here’s a problem (2.7) from [1], to calculate the field due to a spherical shell. The field is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:20}
\BE = \frac{\sigma}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int \frac{(\Br – \Br’)}{\Abs{\Br – \Br’}^3} da’,
\end{equation}

where \( \Br’ \) is the position to the area element on the shell. For the test position, let \( \Br = z \Be_3 \). We need to parameterize the area integral. A complex-number like geometric algebra representation works nicely.

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:40}
\begin{aligned}
\Br’
&= R \lr{ \sin\theta \cos\phi, \sin\theta \sin\phi, \cos\theta } \\
&= R \lr{ \Be_1 \sin\theta \lr{ \cos\phi + \Be_1 \Be_2 \sin\phi } + \Be_3 \cos\theta } \\
&= R \lr{ \Be_1 \sin\theta e^{i\phi} + \Be_3 \cos\theta }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Here \( i = \Be_1 \Be_2 \) has been used to represent to horizontal rotation plane.

The difference in position between the test vector and area-element is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:60}
\Br – \Br’
= \Be_3 \lr{ z – R \cos\theta } – R \Be_1 \sin\theta e^{i \phi},
\end{equation}

with an absolute squared length of

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:80}
\begin{aligned}
\Abs{\Br – \Br’ }^2
&= \lr{ z – R \cos\theta }^2 + R^2 \sin^2\theta \\
&= z^2 + R^2 – 2 z R \cos\theta.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

As a side note, this is a kind of fun way to prove the old “cosine-law” identity. With that done, the field integral can now be expressed explicitly

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:100}
\begin{aligned}
\BE
&= \frac{\sigma}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\phi = 0}^{2\pi} \int_{\theta = 0}^\pi R^2 \sin\theta d\theta d\phi
\frac{\Be_3 \lr{ z – R \cos\theta } – R \Be_1 \sin\theta e^{i \phi}}
{
\lr{z^2 + R^2 – 2 z R \cos\theta}^{3/2}
} \\
&= \frac{2 \pi R^2 \sigma \Be_3}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\theta = 0}^\pi \sin\theta d\theta
\frac{z – R \cos\theta}
{
\lr{z^2 + R^2 – 2 z R \cos\theta}^{3/2}
} \\
&= \frac{2 \pi R^2 \sigma \Be_3}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \int_{\theta = 0}^\pi \sin\theta d\theta
\frac{ R( z/R – \cos\theta) }
{
(R^2)^{3/2} \lr{ (z/R)^2 + 1 – 2 (z/R) \cos\theta}^{3/2}
} \\
&= \frac{\sigma \Be_3}{2 \epsilon_0} \int_{u = -1}^{1} du
\frac{ z/R – u}
{
\lr{1 + (z/R)^2 – 2 (z/R) u}^{3/2}
}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Observe that all the azimuthal contributions get killed. We expect that due to the symmetry of the problem. We are left with an integral that submits to Mathematica, but doesn’t look fun to attempt manually. Specifically

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:120}
\int_{-1}^1 \frac{a-u}{\lr{1 + a^2 – 2 a u}^{3/2}} du
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\frac{2}{a^2} & \quad \mbox{if \( a > 1 \) } \\
0 & \quad \mbox{if \( a < 1 \) } \end{array} \right., \end{equation} so \begin{equation}\label{eqn:griffithsEM2_7:140} \boxed{ \BE = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \frac{\sigma (R/z)^2 \Be_3}{\epsilon_0} & \quad \mbox{if \( z > R \) } \\
0 & \quad \mbox{if \( z < R \) } \end{array} \right. } \end{equation} In the problem, it is pointed out to be careful of the sign when evaluating \( \sqrt{ R^2 + z^2 - 2 R z } \), however, I don't see where that is even useful?

References

[1] David Jeffrey Griffiths and Reed College. Introduction to electrodynamics. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 3rd edition, 1999.

Note to IBMers re: LzLabs employment.

August 22, 2016 Incoherent ramblings , ,

When contemplating the decision to leave IBM for LzLabs, I found it helpful to enumerate the pros and cons of that decision, which I shared in a Leaving IBM: A causal analysis blog post after I’d formally left IBM.

Who could have predicted that a blog post that wasn’t about programming arcana, physics or mathematics would have been my most popular ever.  There’s no accounting for the taste of the reader;)

In response to that blog post, I’ve been contacted by a few IBMers who were interested in potential LzLabs employment.

Please note that I left IBM with band 9 status, which means that there is a one year restriction (expiring ~May 2017) against me having any involvement with hiring, or recruitment of IBM employees.  An IBM lawyer was very careful to point that the band 9 contract I signed in 2006 has such a non-solicitation agreement.  I don’t think that anybody told the IBM lawyer that IBM appears to be trying really hard to throw away technical staff, but that does not change the fact that I am bound by such an agreement.

If you contacted me, and I was to respond, it could probably be argued that this would not count as solicitation.  However, I don’t feel inclined to pick a fight with IBM lawyers, who I imagine to have very sharp teeth and unlimited legal budgets.  So, if you are working for IBM, and asking about LzLabs employment, please don’t be offended that I did not reply.  I will try to remember to respond to you next spring, when the sharks are swimming elsewhere.

Geeking out: Oriented surface of volume element

August 20, 2016 math and physics play

Reading the intro chapters to my Griffiths electrodynamics, I ended up re-deriving the 1,2 and 3 parameter variations of Stokes Theorem (a quick derivation as previously done using Geometric Algebra [PDF], but without looking at my notes).  To understand how to map from the algebraic representation to a geometric one for the 3 parameter volume element, I built the following nice little model:IMG_20160820_231303757 IMG_20160820_231333998 IMG_20160820_231316618_HDR

This is like Fig 1.10 from the pdf notes linked above, but was a lot more fun to construct than the drawing.