Timeline for FEM on a Laplacian
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2011 at 19:19 | vote | accept | WhitAngl | ||
| Apr 6, 2011 at 11:46 | answer | added | Jitse Niesen | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 6, 2011 at 8:07 | comment | added | Zen Harper | (2) and (3) will not be equivalent in general; you need appropriate boundary conditions. I think that's what this whole thing is all about. | |
| Apr 6, 2011 at 6:38 | answer | added | Ari | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 9:22 | vote | accept | WhitAngl | ||
| Apr 6, 2011 at 19:19 | |||||
| Apr 1, 2011 at 16:50 | comment | added | kakaz | @WhitAngl - Yes You can. Why not. But what conditions do You have on boundary to obey for the first order difference? | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 15:10 | comment | added | WhitAngl | Thanks - why does it allows rougher elements ? If the basis functions are constant per triangle, they are infinitely differentiable (except at triangle boundaries - is it a problem ?). Can't we directly solve for the laplacian with constant basis functions ? | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 12:51 | answer | added | kakaz | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 31, 2011 at 19:19 | comment | added | Dirk | Well, that way you need one order of differentiability less for $u$ which allows rougher elements. Moreover, since integration by parts holds, both left hand sides are the same and not doing it will lead to the same linear system (if $u$ or its ansatz functions are regular enough). | |
| Mar 31, 2011 at 18:24 | history | edited | WhitAngl | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 197 characters in body
|
| Mar 31, 2011 at 16:17 | history | asked | WhitAngl | CC BY-SA 2.5 |