Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
recently been added),
X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
P3 bubbles.
In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
+ <--> +
* <--> \times
It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
+ <--> \oplus
? <--> +
Thoughts?
Agree.
Kristian
--
Anders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkumgm4ACgkQTuwUCDsYZdGpcQCgg9I/aC3fIWbCcRQ3FYatNNfe
Tn4An2lqiC4goZ0q2zczyx/yAmillgSH
=I7N3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
recently been added),
X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
P3 bubbles.
In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
+ <--> +
* <--> \times
It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
+ <--> \oplus
? <--> +
Thoughts?
Agree.
Me too.
Garth
Kristian
--
Anders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkumgm4ACgkQTuwUCDsYZdGpcQCgg9I/aC3fIWbCcRQ3FYatNNfe
Tn4An2lqiC4goZ0q2zczyx/yAmillgSH
=I7N3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
> >>with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
> >>mixed spaces is not optimal.
> >>
> >>Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
> >>function space" as a direct sum,
> >>
> >> X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
> >>
> >>it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
> >>
> >> X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
> >>
> >>It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
> >>operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
> >>
> >>That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
> >>recently been added),
> >>
> >> X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
> >>
> >>The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
> >>P3 bubbles.
> >>
> >>In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
> >>
> >> + <--> +
> >> * <--> \times
> >>
> >>It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
> >>
> >> + <--> \oplus
> >> ? <--> +
> >>
> >>Thoughts?
> >
> >Agree.
> >
>
> Me too.
>
> Garth
ok. Let's change then.
It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
--
Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
recently been added),
X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
P3 bubbles.
In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
+ <--> +
* <--> \times
It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
+ <--> \oplus
? <--> +
Thoughts?
Agree.
Me too.
Garth
ok. Let's change then.
It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
I can fix ffc. (Have no permission for ufl)
--
Marie
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
> Anders Logg wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>>On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
> After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
> with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
> mixed spaces is not optimal.
>
> Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
> function space" as a direct sum,
>
> X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
>
> it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
>
> X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
>
> It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
> operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
>
> That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
> recently been added),
>
> X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
>
> The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
> P3 bubbles.
>
> In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
>
> + <--> +
> * <--> \times
>
> It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
>
> + <--> \oplus
> ? <--> +
>
> Thoughts?
> >>>Agree.
> >>>
> >>Me too.
> >>
> >>Garth
> >
> >ok. Let's change then.
> >
> >It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
>
> I can fix ffc.
I was hoping for that. :-)
> (Have no permission for ufl)
You do now. ;-)
--
Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian product,
X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
recently been added),
X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W scaled
P3 bubbles.
In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
+ <--> +
* <--> \times
It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
+ <--> \oplus
? <--> +
Thoughts?
Agree.
Me too.
Garth
ok. Let's change then.
It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
I can fix ffc.
I was hoping for that. :-)
(Have no permission for ufl)
You do now. ;-)
Aka, I'll fix that too.
--
Marie
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and some
discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current notation V +
W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a Cartesian
product,
X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
recently been added),
X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
The typical example would be to take V piecewise linears and W
scaled
P3 bubbles.
In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
+ <--> +
* <--> \times
It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
+ <--> \oplus
? <--> +
Thoughts?
Agree.
Me too.
Garth
ok. Let's change then.
It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
I can fix ffc.
I was hoping for that. :-)
(Have no permission for ufl)
You do now. ;-)
Aka, I'll fix that too.
Fixed:
(a) ElementUnion is now called EnrichedElement.
(b) (Old) V + Q --> (New) V * Q
(c) V + Q = EnrichedElement(V, Q)
Now, PYDOLFIN needs updating...
--
Marie
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ffc] Tests for Projection.ufl fails
The regression testing of Projection.ufl is failing for me (and has been so for a while). Could it be that the references have not been updated for this form? The first part of the diff is as follows: -// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.2 -// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.0-beta. +// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.4 +// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.2+. +// +// This code was generated with the following parameters: +// +// cache_dir: '' +// convert_exceptions_to_warnings: True +// cpp_optimize: False +// epsilon:1e-14 +// form_postfix: True +// format: 'ufc' +// log_level: 10 +// log_prefix: '' +// optimize: False +// output_dir: '.' +// precision: '8' +// quadrature_degree: 'auto' +// quadrature_rule:'auto' +// representation: 'auto' +// split: False -- Marie ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Tests for Projection.ufl fails
Works fine here, but I get: Missing reference for Mini.out Kristian On 22 March 2010 13:49, Marie Rognes wrote: The regression testing of Projection.ufl is failing for me (and has been so for a while). Could it be that the references have not been updated for this form? The first part of the diff is as follows: -// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.2 -// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.0-beta. +// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.4 +// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.2+. +// +// This code was generated with the following parameters: +// +// cache_dir: '' +// convert_exceptions_to_warnings: True +// cpp_optimize: False +// epsilon: 1e-14 +// form_postfix: True +// format: 'ufc' +// log_level: 10 +// log_prefix: '' +// optimize: False +// output_dir: '.' +// precision: '8' +// quadrature_degree: 'auto' +// quadrature_rule: 'auto' +// representation: 'auto' +// split: False -- Marie ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Tests for Projection.ufl fails
Kristian Oelgaard wrote: Works fine here, Ah, pulled fresh branch -- and now I see. Projection.ufl has been removed from the demos directory, but the reference is still hovering around. but I get: Missing reference for Mini.out Yes, will add once I've checked that the generated code gives meaningful results. -- Marie Kristian On 22 March 2010 13:49, Marie Rognes wrote: The regression testing of Projection.ufl is failing for me (and has been so for a while). Could it be that the references have not been updated for this form? The first part of the diff is as follows: -// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.2 -// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.0-beta. +// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.4 +// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.2+. +// +// This code was generated with the following parameters: +// +// cache_dir: '' +// convert_exceptions_to_warnings: True +// cpp_optimize: False +// epsilon:1e-14 +// form_postfix: True +// format: 'ufc' +// log_level: 10 +// log_prefix: '' +// optimize: False +// output_dir: '.' +// precision: '8' +// quadrature_degree: 'auto' +// quadrature_rule:'auto' +// representation: 'auto' +// split: False -- Marie ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] Tests for Projection.ufl fails
On 22 March 2010 15:31, Marie Rognes wrote: Kristian Oelgaard wrote: Works fine here, Ah, pulled fresh branch -- and now I see. Projection.ufl has been removed from the demos directory, but the reference is still hovering around. Aha, that explains a lot. but I get: Missing reference for Mini.out Yes, will add once I've checked that the generated code gives meaningful results. OK. Kristian -- Marie Kristian On 22 March 2010 13:49, Marie Rognes wrote: The regression testing of Projection.ufl is failing for me (and has been so for a while). Could it be that the references have not been updated for this form? The first part of the diff is as follows: -// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.2 -// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.0-beta. +// This code conforms with the UFC specification version 1.4 +// and was automatically generated by FFC version 0.9.2+. +// +// This code was generated with the following parameters: +// +// cache_dir: '' +// convert_exceptions_to_warnings: True +// cpp_optimize: False +// epsilon: 1e-14 +// form_postfix: True +// format: 'ufc' +// log_level: 10 +// log_prefix: '' +// optimize: False +// output_dir: '.' +// precision: '8' +// quadrature_degree: 'auto' +// quadrature_rule: 'auto' +// representation: 'auto' +// split: False -- Marie ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:43:41PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
> Marie Rognes wrote:
> >Anders Logg wrote:
> >>On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
> >>>Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and
> >>>some discussion
> >>>with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current
> >>>notation V + W for
> >>>mixed spaces is not optimal.
> >>>
> >>>Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
> >>>function space" as a direct sum,
> >>>
> >>>X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
> >>>
> >>>it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a
> >>>Cartesian product,
> >>>
> >>>X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
> >>>
> >>>It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
> >>>operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
> >>>
> >>>That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
> >>>recently been added),
> >>>
> >>>X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
> >>>
> >>>The typical example would be to take V piecewise
> >>>linears and W scaled
> >>>P3 bubbles.
> >>>
> >>>In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
> >>>
> >>>+ <--> +
> >>>* <--> \times
> >>>
> >>>It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
> >>>
> >>>+ <--> \oplus
> >>>? <--> +
> >>>
> >>>Thoughts?
> >>Agree.
> >>
> >Me too.
> >
> >Garth
> ok. Let's change then.
>
> It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
> >>>I can fix ffc.
> >>
> >>I was hoping for that. :-)
> >>
> >>>(Have no permission for ufl)
> >>
> >>You do now. ;-)
> >>
> >
> >Aka, I'll fix that too.
> >
>
> Fixed:
>
> (a) ElementUnion is now called EnrichedElement.
>
> (b) (Old) V + Q --> (New) V * Q
>
> (c) V + Q = EnrichedElement(V, Q)
>
>
> Now, PYDOLFIN needs updating...
Done.
--
Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ffc] New syntax for mixed and enriched spaces
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:43:41PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:41:42AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 06:20:00PM +0800, Garth N. Wells wrote:
On 22/03/10 16:42, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
On 21 March 2010 21:32, Anders Logg wrote:
After Marie's latest addition of enriched spaces (and
some discussion
with Doug Arnold), it seems clear that our current
notation V + W for
mixed spaces is not optimal.
Even though one may think of the operation of creating a "mixed
function space" as a direct sum,
X = {(v, 0) : v in V} \oplus {(0, w) : w in W},
it is more natural (and common) to think of it as a
Cartesian product,
X = V \times W = {(v, w) : v in V, w in W}
It would therefore be more natural to use '*' instead of '+' as the
operation for creating mixed elements/function spaces.
That would free up '+' to be used for enriched spaces (which have
recently been added),
X = {v + w : v in V, w in W}
The typical example would be to take V piecewise
linears and W scaled
P3 bubbles.
In summary, the suggestion is to use the following notation:
+ <--> +
* <--> \times
It's obvious this is better than what we have now which is
+ <--> \oplus
? <--> +
Thoughts?
Agree.
Me too.
Garth
ok. Let's change then.
It will require changes in both UFL and FFC. Anyone up for it?
I can fix ffc.
I was hoping for that. :-)
(Have no permission for ufl)
You do now. ;-)
Aka, I'll fix that too.
Fixed:
(a) ElementUnion is now called EnrichedElement.
(b) (Old) V + Q --> (New) V * Q
(c) V + Q = EnrichedElement(V, Q)
Now, PYDOLFIN needs updating...
Done.
Great! (I'm off to do some Mini debugging.)
--
Marie
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ffc
Post to : ffc@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ffc
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
