"Dener, Alp" writes:
> Sure. Symmetric Broyden is defined as the convex linear combination of BFGS
> and DFP updates such that SymBrdn = (1-phi)BFGS + phi*DFP with phi in range
> of [0, 1]. It is possible, mathematically, to produce both BFGS and DFP
> applications out of the single Symmetric
Sure. Symmetric Broyden is defined as the convex linear combination of BFGS and
DFP updates such that SymBrdn = (1-phi)BFGS + phi*DFP with phi in range of [0,
1]. It is possible, mathematically, to produce both BFGS and DFP applications
out of the single Symmetric Broyden object. However, in the
"Dener, Alp" writes:
> The two basic Broyden methods can indeed bet combined into one object
> easily, but that’s not as true for other subtypes. Mathematical
> formulations differ significantly between BFGS, DFP, symmetric Broyden
> and SR1 methods. They can be combined on paper, because they’re
On 9/11/18 12:16 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
Gauss Runge-Kutta (including implicit midpoint) is symplectic and does
not require any splitting.
How do you talk about conservation of the symplectic form? The default
model is on R^{2n} and
you get 1 on one half and -1 on the other half. W
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:53 AM Jed Brown wrote:
> Matthew Knepley writes:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:32 AM Zhang, Hong wrote:
> >
> >> A few related discussions can be found at
> >>
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1108/rename-bsi-to-symplectic/diff
> >>
> >> In additio
I have no objections to a single mat type and would be happy to refactor it
that way. But before I do that, I think some discussion on the subject is
useful.
AIJ matrices in PETSc are structured similarly to the LMVM matrices. They have
a base type, MATAIJ. They have major subtypes like MATSEQA
On 9/11/18 10:53 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> Matthew Knepley writes:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:32 AM Zhang, Hong wrote:
>>
>>> A few related discussions can be found at
>>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1108/rename-bsi-to-symplectic/diff
>>>
>>> In addition, what we have in
I'm a bit concerned that these LMVM variants are packing
optimization-specific structure into the Mat even if the algebraic
operations like MatMult are equivalent. Compare the two Broydens, for
example.
ierr = MatLMVMApplyJ0Fwd(B, X, Z);CHKERRQ(ierr);
for (i = 0; i <= lmvm->k-1; ++i) {
ie
Matthew Knepley writes:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:32 AM Zhang, Hong wrote:
>
>> A few related discussions can be found at
>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1108/rename-bsi-to-symplectic/diff
>>
>> In addition, what we have in PETSc now is "Basic Symplectic Integrators"
>> as
I would be happy with one matrix type and removing the convenience functions
from the code. I am surprised that the dark lord did not mention it when
he approved the pull request...
Matt: the difference in the subtypes is that they are using different formulas
that result in different approxima
Just a heads-up regarding final changes for 3.10 release.
These changes are in in branch balay/release-3.10-revert-to-dev
It has 2 commits:
- The first commit in this branch will be the final commit to 3.10 release.
- The second commit will restore master back to dev from release.
I'll be rebas
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:32 AM Zhang, Hong wrote:
> A few related discussions can be found at
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1108/rename-bsi-to-symplectic/diff
>
> In addition, what we have in PETSc now is "Basic Symplectic Integrators"
> as introduced in Ernst Hairer's artic
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:47 AM Dener, Alp wrote:
> 1 base type and 8 subtypes. If there’s a better convention/structure to do
> this in PETSc, I’d be happy to get a refactoring done ASAP this week so
> that it’s cleaner in the release.
>
I guess what Lisandro is asking is, what backend differen
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 at 16:47, Dener, Alp wrote:
> 1 base type and 8 subtypes. If there’s a better convention/structure to do
> this in PETSc, I’d be happy to get a refactoring done ASAP this week so
> that it’s cleaner in the release.
>
Your definition of subtype is not one used almost everywhe
Reminder!
please check
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/changes/dev.html and update
src/docs/website/documentation/changes/dev.html with relavent changes.
Thanks,
Satish
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Satish Balay wrote:
> Also - please check and update
> src/docs/website/documentation/changes
A few related discussions can be found at
https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/pull-requests/1108/rename-bsi-to-symplectic/diff
In addition, what we have in PETSc now is "Basic Symplectic Integrators" as
introduced in Ernst Hairer's article
https://www.unige.ch/~hairer/poly_geoint/week2.pdf .
Oth
1 base type and 8 subtypes. If there’s a better convention/structure to do this
in PETSc, I’d be happy to get a refactoring done ASAP this week so that it’s
cleaner in the release.
—
Alp Dener
Argonne National Laboratory
https://mcs.anl.gov/person/alp-Dener
On Sep 11, 2018, at 5:10 AM, Lisandro
So now we have 9 new, top-level, public matrix types for LMVM... Really?
#define MATLMVM"lmvm"
#define MATLMVMDFP "lmvmdfp"
#define MATLMVMBFGS"lmvmbfgs"
#define MATLMVMSR1 "lmvmsr1"
#define MATLMVMBRDN"lmvmbrdn"
#define MATLMVMBADBRDN "lmvmbadbrdn"
If the plan is to eventually have a family of sympletic integrators, then I
think this is a really bad name.
We should follow the pattern elsewhere, and have a main TSSYMPLECTIC type,
and subtypes TSSYMPLECTICBASIC etc, and in command line we ask for -ts_type
sympletic -ts_sympletic_type basic.
O
19 matches
Mail list logo
