On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Lorenzo Zanon
wrote:
>
>
> On 5/31/16 5:41 PM, John Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Lorenzo Zanon > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I solved the problem. During the "online" run, I was writing down the
>> coefficients of the reduced solution u_
On 5/31/16 5:41 PM, John Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Lorenzo Zanon
> mailto:za...@aices.rwth-aachen.de>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I solved the problem. During the "online" run, I was writing down the
> coefficients of the reduced solution u_N in data files, w
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Lorenzo Zanon
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I solved the problem. During the "online" run, I was writing down the
> coefficients of the reduced solution u_N in data files, which were then
> read in a separate run to compute the error bound. I converted this
> writing/readi
Hello,
I solved the problem. During the "online" run, I was writing down the
coefficients of the reduced solution u_N in data files, which were then
read in a separate run to compute the error bound. I converted this
writing/reading from data files to binary; the precision is now preserved.
T
Hi Lorenzo,
It sounds like the data isn't being written to full precision in your case.
This is surprising to me, so I'd definitely like to look into this some
more.
I suggest two options:
1. Make a minimal test case based on one of the RB examples in libMesh that
reproduces your issue. Then I c
