Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 16:12 CDT, Denis Davydov wrote: > FYI, this logo is done with a help of qualified (master degree) graphic > designer. I like it very much. +1 Further, the somewhat different color scheme is also very much appreciated! We shouldn't have the "jet

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

FYI, this logo is done with a help of qualified (master degree) graphic designer. On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:09:33 PM UTC+2, Timo Heister wrote: > > Personally, I prefer the colors and font I used. I like the green dot > though! > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Denis Davydov

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

Personally, I prefer the colors and font I used. I like the green dot though! On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Denis Davydov wrote: > Ok, here's my final suggestion for a logo. > The writing is based on Courier IBM, changed to curves and further tweaked. > Three colours are

Re: [deal.II] modifying of only one component of solution

On 08/27/2017 11:53 AM, Marek Čapek wrote: I am getting the solution in PetscWrappers::MPI::Vector solution_phase_n; I am interested in modifying the vector of the solution - I want to cut the undershoots and overshoots in phase-field component of the solution. Namely I have values of

Re: [deal.II] Re: Anisotropic fe space

On 08/28/2017 09:42 AM, Praveen C wrote: Yes, I could use FE_RaviartThomasNodal(k-1) to get the test functions, though I would have liked to choose other nodes. Then I don't think I understand what the original question was. Do you need an element, or just the polynomials? For the latter, you

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

On 08/28/2017 09:35 AM, Matthias Maier wrote: As already mentioned off-list. We should switch to a font with a clear and open license anyway. Maybe the twentieth anniversary is a perfect opportunity to slightly change the logo (and colors)?:-) I think that proposing to use a different font

Re: [deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Dear Lucas, Great! We're looking forward to adding you to the list of contributors to the project :-) J-P On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:42:30 PM UTC+2, Lucas Campos wrote: > > Dear Jean-Paul, > > I can definitely do it. > > Lucas > > On 28 August 2017

Re: [deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Dear Jean-Paul, I can definitely do it. Lucas On 28 August 2017 at 17:40, Jean-Paul Pelteret wrote: > Dear Lucas, > > You're welcome. Thanks for the discussion and your feedback! I've made a > note to myself to improve > the

Re: [deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Dear Lucas, You're welcome. Thanks for the discussion and your feedback! I've made a note to myself to improve the documentation in this area, but if you want a small side-project then feel free to propose the amendments yourself with a pull

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

I am fine with adjusting colours, but I like the IBM Courier font as it has relevant history behind. I believe it is this font which is currently used on a low resolution logo and to my knowledge this font is royalty free. So i would stick with it. > On 28 Aug 2017, at 17:35, Matthias Maier

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

As already mentioned off-list. We should switch to a font with a clear and open license anyway. Maybe the twentieth anniversary is a perfect opportunity to slightly change the logo (and colors)? :-) Best, Matthias On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 10:05 CDT, Jean-Paul Pelteret

Re: [deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Hi Lucus, To add to what I just said (and to try to answer your question more fully / properly), this particular problem admittedly only has homogeneous constraints. See some of the code-gallery examples , e.g. this one

Re: [deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Hi Lucas, I see, now I understand to what you were referring. Yes, the specific example that you've shown here is an intentional redundancy. Previous experiences has shown that we all have a tendency to copy-paste the tutorials and work from them (that is their intended use after all :-). I

Re: [deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Dear Jean-Paul, Thanks for your answer! Still, I am not sure if I understand the code. The main issue seems to be that both blocks in every if else path are the exactly the same. For instance, if (apply_dirichlet_bc == true) > VectorTools::interpolate_boundary_values >

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

Maybe, but its not our current logo but rather a new one? ;-) On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:00:12 PM UTC+2, Timo Heister wrote: > > My counter: >

[deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

Hi Lucas, So it sounds as if you've already worked out what's happening here. We consider 3 cases, namely what to do for newton iteration equal to 0, equal to 1, and greater than 1. For iteration == 0 and iteration == 1, the early return on line 2468

Re: [deal.II] Using deal.II logo in publication

My counter: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__files.gitter.im_dealii_itGp_logo.png=DwIFaQ=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4=4k7iKXbjGC8LfYxVJJXiaYVu6FRWmEjX38S7JmlS9Vw=w-OWsHSFKFvDnpVW9zIrDHHbhcbF69VVZ8_l2TDrs14=7eUaIGiXA633AbVNkMhhGfFdN0m9fwdDWm8xewuKO48= nicer

Re: [deal.II] Re: Anisotropic fe space

On 08/28/2017 06:51 AM, Praveen C wrote: I am working with Raviart-Thomas spaces. For degree k, the x component of the vector field would have degree (k+1) in x variable and degree k in y variable, i.e., it is in Q_{k+1,k}. Similarly the y-component is in Q_{k,k+1}. This is already provided

[deal.II] Re: if else leading to the same path in step 44

> This calculation does not happen anyway, because of the early return in line 2466. Just a minor correction for the previous sentence: The guard on line 2466 will be true only on the second iterations. The else paths will still be taken at least once. On Monday, 28 August 2017 16:02:01

[deal.II] if else leading to the same path in step 44

Dear all, First of all, thanks for the great library! I spent the last few days reading your (very!) extensive documentation and I think it will be really useful for me in the near future. Right now I am struggling a bit on understanding some things on step-44. Most pressing right now is

Re: [deal.II] Re: Anisotropic fe space

Hello Jean-Paul I am working with Raviart-Thomas spaces. For degree k, the x component of the vector field would have degree (k+1) in x variable and degree k in y variable, i.e., it is in Q_{k+1,k}. Similarly the y-component is in Q_{k,k+1}. This is already provided in FE_RaviartThomasNodal. I

[deal.II] Re: Anisotropic fe space

Hi Praveen, I'm a little bit naïve when it comes to these things, but can you not achieve this by using an FESystem with each component given by a different FE and ensuring that all components are fully coupled? Regards, Jean-Paul On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:32:33 PM UTC+2, Praveen C

[deal.II] Anisotropic fe space

Hello I want a space of polynomials like Q_{r,s} where the degree is r in one direction and s in another direction. Discontinuous is fine. I know one can construct anisotropic quadrature rules, but I dont see a way to get an fe space. FE_DGQArbitraryNodes seems to need same degree in all

Re: [deal.II] Re: Calling fortran subroutine from my deal.II code

Thanks a lot. I will need this in the near future and may save me some effort from converting fortran to c++. Best praveen On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Jean-Paul Pelteret wrote: > Hi Praveen, > > I know its been a long time since you posted this question, but it