ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:32:34PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

I was thinking BDM.

So your suggestion is to never use "node" and always use "dof"?

/Anders