On Oct 5, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Roy Stogner wrote: > But you *wouldn't* catch any mistakes in R(). In my eyes one of the > most important things about creating a manufactured solution is that > it tests your physics, which is probably the newest and least tested > code in your application, which can be some of the most complex code, > and which (other than for residual/jacobian consistency) can't be > tested by the library. > > It would be fantastic if your physics *could* be tested by the > library, but automatically generating f doesn't do it. Imagine that > instead of implementing R_normal you implemented R_broken. Then the > library would be evaluating > > f = -R_broken(u_mf) > > and (unless R_broken is extremely broken) R_mf(u) will still converge > to a zero at u = u_mf. The broken residual would be hidden > automatically by the forcing function.
Wait... if f is built from the strong form... then it might catch problems with R right? At least you will need to code up two different forms of your equations and then you will be checking them against each other. If you make the same mistake in both... well it won't catch that.... but if you forgot to multiply by a test function or something in R it might pick it up. Derek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
