Wolfgang,
Yes, that seems entirely plausible and is a bug.
>
>
Since you already read through the implementation of the function, would
> you
>
be interested in writing a patch to fix this? There is a description of how
> to
> contribute here
>
Dear Liu,
I’m sorry but I don’t understand the question, and in particular how it relates
to the original topic of this thread. Could you please try to rephrase your
question?
Best,
Jean-Paul
> On 21 Nov 2018, at 03:58, 2leng liu wrote:
>
> what about the entry? as we know , for a vector
On 11/20/18 7:58 PM, 2leng liu wrote:
> what about the entry? as we know , for a vector base ,we need nomalize the
> entry to be one. for the case of symmetric tensor , if the deviator part is
> 1
> , after normalization , it will become 1/sqrt(2).
> so , what is the real implementation for
On 11/21/18 5:39 AM, 'Maxi Miller' via deal.II User Group wrote:
> Hmm, but in that case I have an addition (update of the sparse jacobian),
> which I do not know how to handle (yet)
Well, if you also have a previous Jacobian matrix, say J, then you would
replace...
> void
On 11/20/18 6:30 PM, FU wrote:
>
> AT+BFT^4=C
> A, B, F are sparse matrices.
> How to solve this nonlinear problem?
This is not well defined. If T is a vector, what does T^4 mean?
As I mentioned in previous answers, you misunderstand how to discretize
nonlinear PDEs. Please take a look at
Sebastian,
> I'll use this as a learning example of how to contribute.
Great! Please do let us know if you need help with anything!
> Just to be sure that
> I'm not doing it overly complicated: If I only have an iterator to a face of
> a
> cell, there is no simple way of figuring out
Hmm, but in that case I have an addition (update of the sparse jacobian),
which I do not know how to handle (yet)
Am Dienstag, 20. November 2018 23:07:17 UTC+1 schrieb Wolfgang Bangerth:
>
> On 11/20/18 2:27 PM, 'Maxi Miller' via deal.II User Group wrote:
> > how exactly can I understand that?
