Thanks for your explanations in details，that's exactly what I want.
Best
M.
Wolfgang Bangerth 于 2018年12月29日周六 上午12:33写道：
> On 12/28/18 1:14 AM, llf m wrote:
> > Yes, you are right. At first in Step-15
> > pseudo-timestepping(Lecture 31.7),
> > it linearized the nonlinear term that ma
On 12/28/18 1:14 AM, llf m wrote:
> Yes, you are right. At first in Step-15
> pseudo-timestepping(Lecture 31.7),
> it linearized the nonlinear term that makes me confused, linearized a
> nonlinear term
> is a general approach? Is it acceptable? But finally I get the idea, yes, we
> n
Dear Wolfgang,
Yes, you are right. At first in Step-15
pseudo-timestepping(Lecture 31.7),
it linearized the nonlinear term that makes me confused, linearized a
nonlinear term
is a general approach? Is it acceptable? But finally I get the idea, yes,
we need
linearization in nonlinear iter
On 12/20/18 1:15 AM, miffy@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm sorry to reply you in a old question mail, I want to know when rhs
> depend on the solution i.e., rhs is a polynomials of the solution, should we
> handle it with test function to get a bilinear form while we construct the
> weak form?
Dear Wolfgang Bangerth,
I'm sorry to reply you in a old question mail, I want to know when rhs
depend on the solution i.e., rhs is a polynomials of the solution, should
we handle it with test function to get a bilinear form while we construct
the weak form?
The description may be
where x component of vector_RHS is -(grad_psi)_y / x and y component is
(grad_psi) / x (here psi is the another calculated scalar solution)
So, I refer to "class AdvectionField : public TensorFunction<1,dim>" in
step-9.cc to form the vector_RHS
You're approaching this the wrong way. The
