Re: [deal.II] Project cell quadrature point data to boundary

or_something; } qpoint_to_dof_matrix.vmult_add(local_fe_values, local_values_at_qpoints); cell->set_dof_values(local_fe_values, distributed_field); local_fe_values = 0; } The distributed_field should have what you want in the end. Hope this helps. Abbas -- The deal.II project is located at http:/

Re: [deal.II] Shape gradients of (f(x)*\phi_i)

he SBP-SAT Stabilization for Finite Element Methods Part I: Linear Problems. I am probably missing something here so I'll be back if I figure this out. Asking if I can query for shape_grad(f*phi, point) was more of a shot in the dark. Thanks for the input as well Abbas On Tuesday, January 23,

Re: [deal.II] Shape gradients of (f(x)*\phi_i)

Daniel, Sorry I meant to say I don't want to use that chain rule. It's because I am looking at papers that compare integrating both versions of the weak form: post and prior using the chain rule. Abbas On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 7:47:14 PM UTC d.arnd...@gmail.com wrote: > Ab

[deal.II] Shape gradients of (f(x)*\phi_i)

by parts. Abbas -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: [deal.II] Liltle help with MUMPS

t 11:39:59 a.m. UTC-5 Wolfgang Bangerth > wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/15/23 04:09, Abbas Ballout wrote: >> > >> > If I run mpirun -np2 the assemble times are 25.8 seconds and the MUMPS >> > solve times are 51.7 seconds. >> > If I run

Re: [deal.II] In example 40, the results are significantly different between the first-order and second-order finite element meshes

ztdep, You got me curious You can output the results of the Kelly error estimate with something like this in the data output: *Vector estimated_error_per_cell(triangulation.n_active_cells()); KellyErrorEstimator::estimate(dof_handler,QGauss(fe.degree + 1),

[deal.II] Liltle help with MUMPS

This isn't a dealii problem per-se. I am trying to run a number of simulations with different parameters of the same code with the underlying solver being MUMPS. I am using *mpirun --cpu-set * to bind and isolate the different simulations to different cores (As I believe I should)

[deal.II] Re: Difference between 2 Wasy to Initialize System Matrix in MPI World

Did you try to run in Debug? If not give it a try and see if an exception is thrown. Abbas On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:15:14 AM UTC+2 hitl...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello all, > > > Previously, I initialized my system matrix in this way (option A)

Re: [deal.II] Neumann Boundary condition in MeshWorker for Automatic Differentiation

Jost, For looping on the boundaries, you'll have to write an extra lambda amd pass that to the MeshWorker. You can look at step 12 or 74 for this. Also following this cause I want to know what are the MeshWorker alternatives since I am relying heavily on it in my code Best, Abbas

[deal.II] Re: How to use cell stiffness matrix to build global stiffness matrix

Not really experienced with eigen so I am not exactly sure. Abbas On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:35 PM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Abbas, > > Thanks for your reply. > > I will take a look at the step13. > > Howerver, I would like to know if the cell matrix

Re: [deal.II] Q: Question about extracting part of a vector

Najwa, The files I edited are in the pull request here: https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/15805. Let me know if I can help in a better way or of there is something I can do. Abbas. On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:48:41 AM UTC+2 najwaa...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Abbas, > >

[deal.II] Re: How to use cell stiffness matrix to build global stiffness matrix

Lance, I am not sure if I understood you correctly. Maybe looking at the local_assemble_matrix() function in step:13 might help. Abbas On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:00:10 AM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello dear group, > > I have one question which is about how to bui

Re: [deal.II] Q: Question about extracting part of a vector

Najwaa, I submitted a pull request <https://github.com/dealii/dealii/pull/15805> recently about something similar <https://groups.google.com/g/dealii/c/H0kLG8RJKVc>. (I guess) Maybe that would help. Abbas On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 7:37:59 PM UTC+2 najwaa...@gmail.com wr

Re: [deal.II] Integrate difference isn't picking on the

H1 convergence in my example code so I know what I am doing works. How do I proceed? Best, Abbas On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:53:24 PM UTC+2 lucasm...@gmail.com wrote: > I haven't tried this with deal.II yet, but I've recently started using the > mold linker for programs I write

Re: [deal.II] Integrate difference isn't picking on the

If I change a single line in deal I'll have to wait a good amount of time for it to compile. Do you all go through this? All I have is a 4 cores and 16 GBs of RAM on my Laptop. On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 9:48:00 AM UTC+2 Abbas Ballout wrote: > YES. Would take me a while but I ll

Re: [deal.II] How to set refinement flag on the neighbouring cell when it is owned by another processor?

I ended up passing the assemble_own_interior_faces_both flag to mesh-worker mesh loop. I will probably have to use these Consensus algorithms sooner or later anyway. Thank you. Abbas On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:17:59 AM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 7/11/23 08:23, Abbas Ball

Re: [deal.II] Integrate difference isn't picking on the

YES. Would take me a while but I ll do it. Be prepared for many questions. On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 2:44:01 AM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 7/16/23 07:22, Abbas Ballout wrote: > > I get this error when I call the > exact_solution_vector_function.gradient(p1): > &

Re: [deal.II] Integrate difference isn't picking on the

al function in a base class but that has not beenoverridden in your derived class.* Calling value works fine but not gradient even though I have overridden both functions. On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:55:34 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 7/14/23 09:34, Abbas Ballout wrote:

[deal.II] Integrate difference isn't picking on the

I am overriding the value and the gradient member functions in the TensorFunction class then similar to step 7 I am using compute_global_error to compute the L2: and H1 norms. I have to convert my TensorFunction to a vector valued function in order to do this using

Re: [deal.II] Deformation gradient at face quadrature point for current traction

Krish, I could do this following step 18 and how history variables are constructed there. It was straightforward in case you are interested. On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 7:55:19 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 6/26/23 00:49, Krish wrote: > > > > I am following step-44 to solve

Re: [deal.II] Is it normal for the results to vary this much when running in parallel.?

:13, Abbas Ballout wrote: > > ** > > > > Bellow I have plotted the rhs before and after applying boundary > constraints > > when running with 1, 2 and 3 cores. > > The rhs looks different at the boundary with MPI 3 as opposed to MPIs 1 > and 2. > >

Re: [deal.II] Is it normal for the results to vary this much when running in parallel.?

s is doing something special to ghost nodes? Best, Abbas On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:44:43 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 6/12/23 02:57, Abbas Ballout wrote: > > ** > > > > I am running step 18. > > > > This is the output I getting

[deal.II] Re: Is it normal for the results to vary this much when running in parallel.?

 AM UTC+2 Abbas Ballout wrote: > I am running step 18. > > This is the output I getting for a single quasi-tatic step with mpirun 1 : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Cycle 0:Number of active cells: 3712 (by partition: 3712) > Nu

[deal.II] Is it normal for the results to vary this much when running in parallel.?

I am running step 18. This is the output I getting for a single quasi-tatic step with mpirun 1 : * Cycle 0:Number of active cells: 3712 (by partition: 3712) Number of degrees of freedom: 17226 (by partition: 17226)Assembling system... norm of rhs is 1.88062e+10

Re: [deal.II] Re: How can I visit a face exactly once when running with MPI?

Thanks Wolfgang, Time, and Bruno for your comments. I hate to say thanks too much so sometimes I don't. On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:40:51 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 6/7/23 01:21, Abbas Ballout wrote: > > I set the flag when I create the mesh, then I loop on the fac

Re: [deal.II] Re: How can I visit a face exactly once when running with MPI?

if you do not recognize > the sender. > > > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > Right, it won't clear it everywhere. You would need to use MPI to clear > the flag on the other processor. If you would do that you would create a > huge amount of messages and your code would be

[deal.II] Re: Is it possible to output data in vtk at quadrature points for me to view in something like Paraview?

I figured this one out. I just wrote the output at quadrature points to a text file that I read that in Paraview. On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 5:08:38 PM UTC+2 Abbas Ballout wrote: > This one is quick: > I want to visualise my data at q_points. > > I know that paraview will

[deal.II] Is it possible to output data in vtk at quadrature points for me to view in something like Paraview?

This one is quick: I want to visualise my data at q_points. I know that paraview will interpolate the data but still. -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message

Re: [deal.II] How are both the gradient components calculated in deal?

Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression that get_function_gradients calculates the gradient based on the \sum_j U_j that are on the face. On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:42:34 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 5/22/23 06:21, Abbas Ballout wrote: > >

[deal.II] How are both the gradient components calculated in deal?

Excuse this basic question but how is the gradient at a quadrature point on a face calculated in deal? Take this code snipped for example: QGauss<1> face_quadrature_formula(fe.degree + 1); FEFaceValues<2> fe_face_values(fe, face_quadrature_formula, update_values | update_quadrature_points |

Re: [deal.II] Simple Query about an example in the code gallary

Sorry I deleted this before it had any comments on it. I thought it would disappear. Won't happen again. Abbas On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:18:59 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 4/26/23 03:34, Abbas wrote: > > Why is it that in step 40 the locally relevant

[deal.II] Re: How can I visit a face exactly once when running with MPI?

This works!! Thanks. I am guessing something like: if(cell_neighbour->is_ghost()==true) cell->face(neighbour_face_number)->clear_user_flag(); won't clear the user flag everywhere either, because that didn't work. Right? On Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 2:48:23 PM UTC+2 bruno.t...@gmail.com

[deal.II] How can I visit a face exactly once when running with MPI?

I want to postporcess some data across an interface with feInterface. I have a fully::distributed::triangulation. I am doing is something that "roughly" looks like this: template void TSL_prllel::interface_gradients(Tensor<1, dim> & interface_gradients) { interface_gradients = 0; QGauss

[deal.II] Simple Query about an example in the code gallary

Why is it that in step 40 the locally relevant solution is initialised with both locally_owned_dofs and locally_relevant_dofs, while in the Distributed_LDG_Method example in the code gallery the locally relevant solution is just initialised with just the locally_relevant_dofs only? -- The

[deal.II] Re: Error building with cmake on vscode

Do you have the cmake extension installed in vscode? If not give it a try Abbas On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:44:41 PM UTC+2 vinay...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to build step-1 using cmake on vscode. But vscode throws me > this error: > > ` > CMake Error

[deal.II] Re: How can I get the jump in my solution if my solution vector is distributed?

It works now!! Thanks Abbas On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 8:54:44 PM UTC+2 bruno.t...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > You are using a non-ghosted vector. You need to created a ghosted vector > and they assign the non-ghosted vector to the ghosted one. > > Best, > > Brun

[deal.II] How can I get the jump in my solution if my solution vector is distributed?

I am trying to querry for the jump in my solution with "get_jump_in_function_values" . My solution vector is PETSc distributed. When I run a code that's like the one below: template void output_jumps::interface_jump() { QGauss face_quadrature_formula(degree + 1); FEInterfaceValues

Re: [deal.II] Why does putting the "TimerOuput" before the "ConditionalOStream" leads to a seg fault?

Goes without saying thanks Prof On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:50:03 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 4/19/23 08:33, Abbas B. wrote: > > ** > > > > I attached a simple .cc file that illustrates the tittle. > > Switching lines 18 and 19 leads to a segmenta

[deal.II] Why does putting the "TimerOuput" before the "ConditionalOStream" leads to a seg fault?

I attached a simple .cc file that illustrates the tittle. Switching lines 18 and 19 leads to a segmentation fault and I would like to know why out of curiosity. Would appreciate it. Thanks -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see

[deal.II] How does the function "evaluate_vector_field()" for example work?

ant try figure out things like that on my own before coming here. So, where is the hard code associated with the function "evaluate_vector_field()". I can't find it. Thanks of course, Abbas -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see

Re: [deal.II] VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values doesn't work for DG

Thank you Prof. Bangerth. I am always greatfull for your input. On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:27:49 PM UTC+1 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 3/8/23 07:49, Abbas wrote: > > > > I am solving a nonlinear problem with DG and my BCs are in the weak > form. It > > wou

Re: [deal.II] VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values doesn't work for DG

I would still want to initialise my solution vector to the values which are prescribed at the boundary before solving. Context: I am solving a nonlinear problem with DG and my BCs are in the weak form. It would be helpful if I start with a solution vector that is closer to the prescribed

Re: [deal.II] Queries on calculation on average stress.

); data_out.build_patches(); std::ofstream output("solution" + std::to_string(refinement_level) + "_" + std::to_string(cycle) + ".vtu"); data_out.write_vtu(output); } For averages you'll have to loop in the DataPostProcessor derived class and average your quantity.

Re: [deal.II] SIPG is misbehaving at the corners which separate a Dirichlet and a Neumann BC .

gt; > Luca. > > > On 11 Jan 2023, at 14:33, Abbas wrote: > > > > Well, this is embarrassing. > > Thank you very much > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:11:11 PM UTC+2 luca@gmail.com > wrote: > > You have an issue in your boundary

Re: [deal.II] SIPG is misbehaving at the corners which separate a Dirichlet and a Neumann BC .

ace(face_no)->boundary_id() == 1) { > > … > > } > > otherwise, you are going to assemble the face terms twice on the four > corners. > > Best, > Luca. > > > On 11 Jan 2023, at 12:05, Abbas wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > >

Re: [deal.II] collect2 linking error when executing make

Simon, I believe you shouldn't pass the "-DDEAL_II_WITH_HDF5=OFF" to cmake to begin with. On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+2 Simon wrote: > deal.II was installed using spack. > > Do I have to recompile the whole library with > $ cmake -DDEAL_II_WITH_HDF5=OFF? > > > > Am Do., 5.

Re: [deal.II] VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values doesn't work for DG

it will even if I were able to interpolate. It's cool how dealii is consitent with the maths. Maybe @Wolfgang would agree that this should have thrown an exception in Debug? On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 9:31:34 PM UTC+2 d.arnd...@gmail.com wrote: > Abbas, > > Yes, FE_DGQ only def

[deal.II] VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values doesn't work for DG

Hello, The VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values function works for interpolating fe_Q functions but not fe_DGQ . Was this meant to be the case? I attached a minimal code that illustrates this. -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum

Re: [deal.II] Re: Error in Reading Gmsh File in Dealii

If you get stuck you can set the material ID manually after importing it with something like: Point p ; for (const auto : triangulation.active_cell_iterators()) {p=cell->center() ; if(sqrt(p[0]^2+p[1]^2)set_material_id(1) ; else cell->set_material_id(2) ; } It's a cheat and might

[deal.II] Re: MatrixFree support for Nedelec element in deal.II

that worries me about DG is if they could handle the div free condition well, and if they are robust for high frequency problems. Just my 2 cents. Hope it helps in some way even if you don't chose this path. best, Abbas On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:45:12 PM UTC+2 yy.wayne wrote: > Tha

Re: [deal.II] How to create the magnitude of my solution in a new Vector?

I figured it out. I need to use history variables as in step 18. On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 9:18:27 AM UTC+2 Abbas wrote: > EXACTLY. > However, it is not clear to me how can I store that value, so that in the > next iteration I would be able to compare it with the curr

Re: [deal.II] How to create the magnitude of my solution in a new Vector?

at 2:24:40 AM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 12/12/22 05:41, Abbas wrote: > > > > I am solving a vector problem similar to step-8. I have > > aVector solution with u_x and u_y at each dof. I would like to > have > > another Vector magnitude which stores the

[deal.II] How to create the magnitude of my solution in a new Vector?

Hello, This might be a simple question but I am stuck. I am solving a vector problem similar to step-8. I have a Vector solution with u_x and u_y at each dof. I would like to have another Vector magnitude which stores the magnitude \sqrt(u_x^2+u_y^2) at each dof. Now it is clear that

[deal.II] Re: How would you document a step/code/module?

Thank you Marc for your input, Maybe I am just complicating things. If I ever make a good example/module in the future, I'll make sure to share it to the code gallery. On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:11:14 AM UTC+2 mafe...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Abbas, > > if you are willing

[deal.II] Re: MatrixFree support for Nedelec element in deal.II

trying to be a bit informative. Maybe you get one of those questions in the future. best, Abbas On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:45:12 PM UTC+2 yy.wayne wrote: > Thanks Abbas, > > I considered about DG method, because DG allows discontinuity and > implements boundary condition

[deal.II] Re: MatrixFree support for Nedelec element in deal.II

Maybe you can look into using DG for discritizing the problem? You're already using penalty terms so might as well. One thing I am afraid of is that Nedelec elements inherently satisfy the div free condition, while DG might need careful treatment or your preconditioner would fail at high

Re: [deal.II] How do I set initial solution vector to boundary values in DG?

al in the boundary > condition and that difference needs to be applied in every step > (assuming you solve for an update in each Newton step). > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 10:56 AM Wolfgang Bangerth > wrote: > > > > On 12/3/22 07: 11, Abbas wrote: > > Something like t

[deal.II] How would you document a step/code/module?

Hello, Let's say you made 1000+ lines of code with dealii, and you want to document and share it in a format similar to that of the dealii steps, how would you go about doing this? MAYBE in the future people will share single "modules" with some "tutorial" like documentation. This might be

Re: [deal.II] How can I integrate along a surface/edge within the domain? Can I tag the surface/edge with an ID?

Thank you.This works. For anyone seeing this in the future, change "int face" to "int f" in the for loop. -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you

[deal.II] How do I set initial solution vector to boundary values in DG?

Hello, I am solving a non-linear equation with DG. As per step 15, we set the boundary values initially using the following function: template void MinimalSurfaceProblem::set_boundary_values() { std::map boundary_values; VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values

[deal.II] How can I integrate along a surface/edge within the domain? Can I tag the surface/edge with an ID?

Hello, As per the screenshot below, I created and imported a mesh using gmsh, with two material IDs. I want to integrate on the edge that separate the two materials for my weak form. I tried tagging the internal edge with an ID in gmsh to loop on it, but of course dealii throws an error

[deal.II] Re: Doubt Related to DataPostprocessor class

Change "data_out.write_vtk (output);" to "data_out.write_vt u (output);"

Re: [deal.II] Gradient Postprocessor not working

I/group__Exceptions.html#gacad99726038e4fca7f605fdffb3317e4> u (output);" Thanks Doxygen fixes are done with a PR too? Can I do it? It will take me forever tho. On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:35:32 PM UTC+2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 11/8/22 09:11, Abbas wrote: > > *** Caution:

[deal.II] Gradient Postprocessor not working

So I copied what's in the link verbatim to step 8 but it says that I am "trying to use functionality in deal.II that is currently not implemented" I attached the code below. I'll use the default approach for

Re: [deal.II] fe_interface_values but of a tensor quantity

Thanks for the suggestions. For the moment I will try to use the identity {uu}={u]{u}+0.25[u][u] and then I'll see what happens. On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:47:29 PM UTC+3 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > Abbas, > I have no specific suggestions to make this easy. The two options I

Re: [deal.II] fe_interface_values but of a tensor quantity

Yes On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 12:06:23 AM UTC+3 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 9/8/22 04:40, Abbas wrote: > > > > I want the average of (uu) which is = u1*u1/2 +u2*u2/2 but I don't know > > how to get it. > > Do I understand right that u1 and u2 are vectors,

[deal.II] fe_interface_values but of a tensor quantity

I am using DG elements and if I want to query the average of my vector solution across the interface I can do something like : std::vector> old_velocity_averages(n_q_points); fe_iv[velocities].get_average_of_function_values(solution_np0,old_velocity_averages); which gives me the average of

[deal.II] On the discretization of the time harmonic Maxwell equation

This is not a dealii question per se but again, if it's someone who can answer this question it's going to be someone from here. The literature mostly refers to two approaches todiscretizing the time harmonic Maxwell equation. The first one is through the use of edge curl conforming Nedelec

[deal.II] The include fe/fe_values header file seems redundant

Hello, Just a tiny remark, but it seems that commenting "#include " out of the header yields no errors. I tried that in step-3 and the step worked fine. Is the FEvalues class imported by another library indirectly? Best, Abbas -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.

[deal.II] Re: SparseDirectUMFPACK - member function "initialize" takes very long

ent/doxygen/deal.II/namespaceDoFRenumbering.html#ab938a690bf4e2adff191fe969b0f21d3> is something you might want to have a look at . Best, Abbas On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:26:29 AM UTC-4 Simon wrote: > Dear all, > > I use the SparseDirectUMFPACK solver for doing some post-p

[deal.II] Re: Preconditioner for the time harmonic Maxwell equation

E = J , sigma > 0 Mine is: curl x curl x E - k^2 E = 0 and because of that it looks Hypre's AMS <https://hypre.readthedocs.io/en/latest/solvers-ams.html> solver can only work with problems as given in the paper Am I correct here? best, Abbas On Wednesday, May 19,

[deal.II] Preconditioner for the time harmonic Maxwell equation

eating a multigrid solver like step-16 might solve this issue but I would rather use that as plan B. Any hint is appreciated. Thanx :3 Abbas -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You re

Re: [deal.II] using VectorTools::project_boundary_values_curl_conforming_l2 with FEsystem fe(FE_Nedelec<3>(0), 2)

partof the system my output for the constraint is: 1. 1 = 0 2. 3 = 0 3. 5 = 0 4. 7 = 0 On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 8:22:58 PM UTC-4 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On 5/3/21 7:43 AM, Abbas Ballout wrote: > > *The right hand side of the second equation isn't bein

[deal.II] using VectorTools::project_boundary_values_curl_conforming_l2 with FEsystem fe(FE_Nedelec<3>(0), 2)

Some context: I am trying to model a waveguide which would require me to solve the double curl equation curlxcurlxE-cE=0 where c is some constant(real or imaginary) subject to nxE=nxf on different parts of the boundary where f can be real or imaginary also. The problem requires the use of