Hello Prof. Bangerth, Thank you for the answer! Now things are clear to me.
Best, Yiyang On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:00:39 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > On 10/26/2017 09:50 AM, Yiyang Zhang wrote: > > > > It seems to me that both ways are fine. Is there any particular reason > > that we prefer one than the other? > > Yes, both ways are correct. > > But you will need a constraint object to eliminate hanging node > constraints and boundary values from the newton_update equation before > you solve for the newton update, and these constraints need to be > homogeneous. > > Since the constraints object you show for your second approach, that > means that you have to keep two constraints objects around. That's more > work, more memory, etc, so people usually prefer approach one. > > Best > W. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Wolfgang Bangerth email: bang...@colostate.edu > <javascript:> > www: http://www.math.colostate.edu/~bangerth/ > -- The deal.II project is located at http://www.dealii.org/ For mailing list/forum options, see https://groups.google.com/d/forum/dealii?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "deal.II User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dealii+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
