ffc team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <g.n.wells@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anders Logg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:20:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Anders Logg wrote:
> > > 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".
> > Sure, this is normal FE terminology -  nodal variables for the degrees 
> > of freedom at a node. Also, "nodal value" in general case should be 
> > "nodal values" :).
>
> ok, but how do you say this when the nodal variable is an integral
> over an edge?
>
>
> Can you still say "at a node"? Or is "node" not used then?

I wouldn't use node, I would use "degree of freedom". Are you thinking 
of a Nedelec element?

Garth


> /Anders
>
>
> > Garth
> >
> > > > > 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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