On 01/27/2014 09:02 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On 01/27/2014 01:23 AM, Colin Cotter wrote: >> >>>> Sure. This is why it seems logical to me to constraint both trial and >>>> test space by Laplace equation. Nevertheless I did not think it over a >>>> much. >>> >>> For what it's worth, it seems logical to me as well... I just don't know >>> how to impose the second constraint. >>> >>> So, if anyone could give me a hint or point me to a demo that shows how >>> to constrain test functions, I'd be very happy. >> >> You don't need to constrain the test functions. This is actually the >> whole point of the Lagrange multiplier. You end up with an equation with >> the unconstrained test function, but if you choose a constrained test >> function, the Lagrange multiplier term vanishes. > > I don't think that enforcing an arbitrary constraint on my solution will > be equivalent to requiring the test functions to satisfy Laplace's > equation :-). > > > So I guess you are saying that if I require the solution to satisfy > *Laplace's equation* via a Lagrange multiplier, this is equivalent to > constraining the test functions to satisfy Laplace's equation?
... or does this require a different constraint on the solution? Thanks, Nikolaus _______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
