On 4/6/24 16:24, Mohamad Ghadban wrote:
*
*
But when I changed the first FESystem into:
*FESystem[FE_Q(1)^2-**FE_Q(1)^1**]*
it worked fine because the number of base elements in both FESystems is now
the same. My question is then, is this assertion necessary?
Julian's suggestion works, but if
I think it makes sense. What you are saying is that the number of
components would be summed across all domains regardless of whether they
represent the same variables or not, is that correct?
So if, hypothetically speaking, I am solving the same variables u1, u2, and
u3 in five different domains,
Hi Mohamad,
Yes, you understood correctly.
In your example you should have 5 components.
Basically with FENothing you have placeholders for the components that are
not used on the current domain.
In your example you have the solution components:
- in domain 1: u_1^1, u_2^1, u_3^1, _, _
- in
Hi Julian
Thanks for the tips. My code is actually based on Step 46, but the
difference is that in my case I am not solving for a completely new set of
variables in each part of the domain.
Based on what you are suggesting, wouldn't that mean that the total number
of variables/components that I
Hello everyone!
This is deal.II newsletter #280.
It automatically reports recently merged features and discussions about the
deal.II finite element library.
## Below you find a list of recently proposed or merged features:
#16871: fix maybe-unused warning in grid_tools_dofhandler (proposed by
Thanks!
On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 2:04:08 PM UTC+1 d.arnd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sina,
>
> You'll have to provide the path directly as a function argument, i.e.,
>
> gridin.read_exodusii(case_path + "mesh.exo");
>
> Best,
> Daniel
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 7:32 AM Sina Tajfirooz
> wrote:
