On 7/31/22 18:22, Matthew Rich wrote:
One question regarding the statement about switching boundary conditions...
How so?
BoundaryValuesU is unchanged from the tutorial and directly integrating
eliminates the need for a BC on velocity so I should still be aligned with the
tutorial and the system described earlier in the tutorial. Maybe this is my
problem that my assumption is incorrect?
I haven't looked at the code so I can't really comment on this.
But let me give you a philosophical framework: When you observe a bug in your
code, there is the tension between "I believe that I implemented the code
correctly" and "I observe that the output is not correct". These statements
are incompatible with each other. One or the other must be wrong. So stating
"I should still be aligned with the tutorial and the system described earlier
in the tutorial" is not a helpful approach. You made some changes in parts A,
B, C of the code and the result is no wrong. It's not productive to rule out
any of these as the source based on belief that they "must be correct" or
"should be correct". You can only rule them out if you actively test their
correctness.
Best
W.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bange...@colostate.edu
www: http://www.math.colostate.edu/~bangerth/
--
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 this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dealii/e6eeddfa-8084-088d-2769-e46bf705ac1e%40colostate.edu.
