Sincerely thank you for your advices. Thanks Matthew, too. I will try my best.
Jim
>On 2012-11-09 23:44:45?"Jed Brown" <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> ???
>>On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM, w_ang_temp <w_ang_temp at 163.com> wrote:
>>By the way, as a graduate student, I find that it is difficult to write a
>>paper just using PETSc
>>to deal with a large problem. Because it seems that there is no an innovative
>>idea by just using
>>the available things.
>Reimplementing an existing method is not new either. Now there are many papers
>that reimplement existing methods under a new name, without citing its
>>existing use, and usually with less rigorous analysis than earlier work. This
>is caused either by stubborn ignorance or intentional deception. It's not
>science >and only survives due to negligent reviewers.
>Creating genuinely new methods that solve meaningful problems and work better
>than existing methods is Hard. To start with, it's important to understand
>>the capabilities and limitations of existing methods. Unless your intended
>research area is pretty focused, expect to read at least 1000 papers and write
>>dozens of experimental codes. You might be able to rely on your advisor to
>accelerate this process, but advisors are not always right.
>>It is also not easy to get something new based on the src of PETSc.
>If you work in an application area, focus on the modeling and method
>components specific to your problem. Build the special ingredients using PETSc
>and >let the library do the rest of the work. Better understanding of methods
>will help you do this faster and in more powerful ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20121110/9089ea43/attachment-0001.html>
