On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Matt, you know how we always tell people not to use KSP (or even Lapack) >>> for 2x2 problems? Surely the same advice applies to SNES, but your point >>> location code is doing it. >>> >> >> Yep. The wrapping overhead is far less with some Newton iterations >> > > Bogus > > >> , and we have no good alternative. >> > > I posit that it's fewer lines of code (and much faster) to just write out > the Newton iteration on the spot. You don't need the full algorithmic > infrastructure for point location. > And if it does not converge with fixed step? It will eventually morph nto SNES. I think your approach is bogus unless you can prove that your simple thing is sufficient. Matt -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130102/8e2a8563/attachment-0001.html>
