On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>    Ok, clearly we still don't understand Picard and what is called Picard in 
> PETSc is probably all wrong.
> 
>    Start with F(x) = 0  Introduce any "reasonable" matrix function G(x) and 
> write the equivalent nonlinear system G(x) x = -F(x) + G(x)x
> non-defect correction Picard iteration is solve G(x^n) x^{n+1} = -F(x^n) + 
> G(x^n) x^n write this in defect correction style as
> solve G(x^n)(x^{n+1} - x^n) = -F(x^n).  When G(x^n) is the Jacobian of F() 
> this is Newton's method. Correct?
> 
>    So a user can do (defect correction) "Picard" for their problem simply by 
> providing any G() they want and the original F() using the usual PETSc 
> interface, correct?
> 
>    Given this introduction it is wrong to say there are many methods 
> _between_ Newton and Picard. It is really that (defect correction) Picard is 
> a spectrum of methods (any reasonable G()) and Newton is a special case. 
> Correct?
> 
>     The way "Picard" comes into PETSc is when the user does not have F(x) 
> instead they have A(x) x = f(x). They want to supply A(x) and f(x) and A(x) 
> may not be particularly near the Jacobian of A(x)x - f(x) (since f() can have 
> all kinds of stuff in it).
> 
> Thus Picard in PETSc means the user provides A(x) and f(x) and Newton means 
> the user provides F(x) and any "Jacobian" they want.
> 
> Fine, but I want to encourage people to "do Picard" by writing F(x) and A(x) 
> because then they can incrementally add terms to A without breaking the 
> structure. If they write to the "Picard" (A(x), f(x)) interface, they are 
> constraining themselves and probably won't try using other methods. 
> Regardless, we still want to support the equivalent of -snes_mf_operator 
> (Newton) despite them using that silly "Picard" interface.

   All true and understood. We can add to the docs a recommendation to avoid 
the Picard interface but just have it to pander to the small number of stubborn 
silly folks.

   Barry


Reply via email to