[petsc-dev] controlling vector values while doing matrix free operations

[Jed Brown]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 19:52, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> I guess I'm missing something: why would you add pressure to the set of
> conservative variables?  It's redundant, as it can be obtained at any time
> via the equation of state. The only reason to add it is to impose a bound
> constraint on it and use it to monitor for departures from the feasible set.


This is exactly the reason. I'm saying that since it is defined by the
equation of state, we might be able to avoid adding it explicitly.

Note that in DG, it will be evaluated at quadrature points, and would thus
break the block structure satisfied by the conservative variables. This
likely also makes it more difficult to eliminate (while using to impose
constraints).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111214/17388944/attachment.html>