| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:32:34PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:Anders Logg wrote:I wouldn't use node, I would use "degree of freedom". Are you thinking of a Nedelec element?On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:20:22PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:Anders Logg wrote: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" :).On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:03:41PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:Anders Logg wrote:OK, but this does clash with accepted terminology. In both Brenner & Scott and Ciarlet, nodes are defined as points.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".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".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?GarthI was thinking BDM. So your suggestion is to never use "node" and always use "dof"?
Not quite. I would restrict the meaning of "node" to a position point, and use degree of freedom for a value that can change, typically representing the amplitude of some function.
I looked quickly in a few books and they refer to "degrees of freedom" for BDM and Nedelec elements.
Garth
/Anders _______________________________________________ FFC-dev mailing list FFC-dev@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/ffc-dev
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
