On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Fine with me, but it might be nice if the name could somehow convey that this
> is just a defect-correction iteration and need not be Newton (e.g., it's
> Picard if a Picard linearization is used).
What is "a Picard linearization"? As opposed to a non-Picard linearization?
Also if you phrase it as in my other email isn't Newton "a Picard
linearization"? You act as if the term "a Picard linearization" has a well
defined meaning, but Matt never found it in any book in history.
Barry
> OTOH, the name "Newton" is much more recognizable...
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Can we rename
> >
> > #define SNESLS "ls"
> > #define SNESTR "tr"
> > #define SNESVIRS "virs"
> > #define SNESVISS "viss"
> >
> > to something like newtonls newtontr vinewtonrs vinewtonss? Suggestions
> > for names?
>
> +1
>
> Matt
>
> > Now that we have many other methods than Newton these names are terrible
> > and confusing.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Barry
> >
>
>
>
> --
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which
> their experiments lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener
>
