Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Praveen C <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> DG for elliptic operators still makes lot of sense if you have >> >> >> >> problems with discontinuous coefficients >> >> >> > >> > This is thrown around a lot, but without justification. Why is it better >> > for discontinuous coefficients? The >> > solution is smoother than the coefficient (elliptic regularity). Are DG >> > bases more efficient than high order >> > cG for this problem? I have never seen anything convincing. >> >> CG is non-monotone and the artifacts are often pretty serious for >> high-contrast coefficients, especially when you're interested in >> gradients (flow in porous media). But because the coefficients are >> under/barely-resolved, you won't see any benefit from high order DG, in >> which case you're just using a complicated/expensive method versus >> H(div) finite elements (perhaps cast as finite volume or mimetic FD). >> > > I was including H(div) elements in my cG world. Is this terminology wrong?
It's not a continuous basis.... Perhaps ambiguous.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
