[petsc-dev] PetscCitations: software or underlying math

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> writes:
> > I think we can differentiate between mathematical background and
> analysis,
> > e.g.
> >
> >   Proving that GMRES converges with these matrices, etc.
> >
> > and showing exactly how to structure an algorithm:
> >
> >   Saad and Schultz, 96
>
> *86*, but what about GCR?  After all, GMRES is an incremental
>

I'm getting too old.


>  modification of GCR.  It also contains mispredictions like:
>

I would argue that Saad's implementation suggestions (like incremental QR)
are
much better than the GCR and justify an independent citation.


>
>   "In practical implementation it is usually more suitable to replace
>   the Gram-Schmidt algorithm of step 2 by the modified Gram-Schmidt
>   algorithm"
>
> If someone uses LGMRES, would we produce a citation only to Baker et al,
>

Only to Baker. This should be easy since SS would be associated with GMRES.


> or also to Saad & Schultz?  What about the BiCG family, containing many
> more variants that are slight variations on existing methods?  Or
>

We need to build in support for selection with options I think.


> identical methods that were published twice under different names?
>

Cite both.

   Matt

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20131024/2870c912/attachment.html>