On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jed Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov">jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:14, Matthew Knepley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:knepley@gmail.com" target="_blank">knepley@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Basically. You have to store indices while counting if you don't want to overcount. This is the part he glosses over.</blockquote></div><br><div>No, he has structure implicitly through the mesh. The mesh overcounts some points, but if you can easily determine how much it overcounts, then you have an efficient way to compute a non-redundant count. It's actually straightforward for low-order simplices, but not for more general bases.</div>
</blockquote></div><br>I am doing completely general, in parallel.<div><br></div><div> Matt<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener<br>
</div>