ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:03:41PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 
> 
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > I think of a node as a member of the dual basis for P in the
> > definition of a finite element in Brenner-Scott. A node in FFC is
> > always associated with an entity, like the second node of entity 0 of
> > an entity of dimension 1 (the second node on the first edge).
> > 
> > So I would very much like to keep the name "node".
> > 
> 
> OK, but this does clash with accepted terminology. In both Brenner & 
> Scott and Ciarlet, nodes are defined as points.

Yes, when I look again, they do use "node" for a point, but also refer
to "nodal variables" as the name of the linear functional you evaluate
to get the "nodal value".

> > See also
> > 
> >     http://www.fenics.org/hg/ufc?f=1e97408cde10;file=src/ufc/ufc.h
> > 
> > where we have
> > 
> >     tabulate_nodes()
> >     evaluate_node()
> > 
> 
> This is partly why I made the suggestions. I saw this terminology in 
> some code from Martin. "nodes" gives the impression of points.

ok. More opinions?

/Anders


> Garth
> 
> > But we could discuss what to call it. Other opinions?
> > 
> > /Anders
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 05:22:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> Could "node" be changed to to "dof" in FFC output? To me, a node 
> >> represents a position on an element at which one or more dofs live.
> >>
> >> Garth
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> FFC-dev mailing list
> >> FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > FFC-dev mailing list
> > FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FFC-dev mailing list
> FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev