<div dir="ltr">Correct! That's what I thought :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Jed Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov">jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:08, Mohammad Mirzadeh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mirzadeh@gmail.com" target="_blank">mirzadeh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Humm. What I meant by contiguous is in terms of new global numberings. That is for proc 0: [0, np0), for proc 1: [np0, np1), for proc 2: [np1, np2) ..., for proc p-1: [ np-2, ntotal). I did not mean (topologically) contiguous partitions. Is this not the case?</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div>The global numbering produced by ISPartitioningToNumbering() is contiguous, but each part might not be topologically connected.</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>