On 3/26/19 5:29 AM, Konrad wrote:
> Issue resolved. I used the wrong sparsity pattern. That was just a typo in
> the
> code. Sorry for having bothered you with this but anyway:
Well, glad you found the problem.
Also, doh for deriving the compatibility condition -- that was too simply for
me no
Issue resolved. I used the wrong sparsity pattern. That was just a typo in
the code. Sorry for having bothered you with this but anyway:
Many thanks,
Konrad
--
The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/
For mailing list/forum options, see
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii
Hi Wolfgang,
> Precisely what do you see?
>>
>
> Chaotic distribution of values in the solution several orders of
> magnitudes higher than what I expect.
>
>
>> I haven't heard of this, but that doesn't mean anything. How do you
>> actually derive the compatibility condition in the mixed ca
On 3/23/19 7:23 AM, Konrad wrote:
>
> I am trying to solve a simple elliptic problem (imagine some sort of a
> simple Laplace problem for now) with pure Neumann BCs, say -\Delta u =
> f, n\grad u = g. Now theory tells me that the volume average over f must
> be the same as the boundary average
Hi all,
I am encountered a weird thing (bug?) and I am having trouble to understand
it. Maybe someone has an idea:
I am trying to solve a simple elliptic problem (imagine some sort of a
simple Laplace problem for now) with pure Neumann BCs, say -\Delta u = f,
n\grad u = g. Now theory tells me
