[petsc-users] DMPlex distribution with FVM adjacency

Matthew Knepley knepley at gmail.com
Thu May 25 13:23:23 CDT 2017

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Lawrence Mitchell <
lawrence.mitchell at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 25 May 2017, at 18:05, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want that, is there a reason you cannot use the FEM style
> If you already want the closure, usually the star is not really adding
> anything new.
> Ok, let me clarify.
> Given shared facets, I'd like closure(support(facet)) this is a subset of
> the fem adjacency. "Add in the cell and its closure from the remote rank".
> This doesn't include remote cells I can only see through vertices. Without
> sending data evaluated at facet quad points, I think this is the adjacency
> I need to compute facet integrals: all the dofs in closure(support(facet)).

This seems incoherent to me. For FV, dofs reside in the cells, so you
should only need the cell for adjacency. If you
need dofs defined at vertices, then you should also need cells which are
only attached by vertices. How could this
scheme be consistent without this?



> I thought this was what the fv adjacency was, but I think I was mistaken.
> That is support(cone(p)) for all p that I have.
> Now I do a rendezvous to gather everything in the closure of these new
> points. But I think that means I still don't have some cells?
> Make sense?
> Lawrence

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-users/attachments/20170525/e175f3fd/attachment.html>

More information about the petsc-users mailing list