Content deleted Content added
→Double derivative speak...: new section |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk Header}}
{{WikiProject
{{
{{WikiProject Physics
}}
Line 130:
::Five years later, and frankly, this article is still terrible. Guido's remark that one can only recognize the method at all from this article with great difficulty is spot-on. There are plenty of very intelligent people discussing the most banal of things on this discussion page - the "underlooked role" of one person or another in its history, etc. - can't we improve this article so that it is worth something? The article is terrible, folks, absolutely terrible. If making little changes is not going to improve the situation, then please, someone be bold and rewrite the whole thing. -[[Special:Contributions/24.13.162.248|24.13.162.248]] ([[User talk:24.13.162.248|talk]]) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:::What are you waiting for? Go ahead, make improvements if you have the ability (but please spare us with your opinion on how incapable all other editors are)! [[User:Tomeasy|<span style="color:#0000f1;font-family:Papyrus;cursor:help">'''''T<
== Not much use to a non-mathematician ==
Line 508:
== Double derivative speak... ==
Sorry, but I am trying to understand what is meant in the section 'Weak formation of p1' when it states that 'if u solves P1...' I mean didn't the problem statement for P1 just declare that
Maybe I just need to think about what that means. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.137.180.129|134.137.180.129]] ([[User talk:134.137.180.129#top|talk]]) 19:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== The article is one of the best introduction to finite element method . But the use of greens identities is not clear. we are in plane the weak formulation of p2 be derived more explicitly. in P1 use of mean value theorem be made explicit. ==
the article is one of the best introduction.But in weak formulation of p2 the grrens identity is not clear. we are ina plane region. explicit derivation be done.
in p1 use of mean value theorem be dmade explicit. Also the approach of distribution via sequential convergence and distributional derivative can be indicated in few lines.
on the contary tooo much space is used for h and the denedence on h. tthe whole can be summarized in h as the diameter of the traingle maximum amongst all traingles thas all very simple notion.
Further use of space H H be made clear. why not take H as space of continuous and differentiable except at finitely many points and make matters simple.
use of riesz representation be explicit write the functional and how to express it as inner product with u by RRT. excellent ouline which can be rigorous proof if we restrict H to be a suitable space.
please avoid lengthy discussions on h and subdivisions can be understood intuitively. But solve an explict one dime problem completely .
Also use of Gallerkin is not made explicit . please make that use explicit in the problem.
if these changes are done this can be most seductive logical introduction to fem . no good succint explnation exists on NET <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Anilped|Anilped]] ([[User talk:Anilped#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Anilped|contribs]]) 06:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Request for source/footnote ==
[[User:John Smith Anderson|John Smith Anderson]] ([[User talk:John Smith Anderson|talk]]) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Under the heading "The weak form of P1" it is stated that the weak form implies the strong form. i.e. the equation above the line "The proof is easier for twice continuously differentiable u (mean value theorem)"
I cannot find a reference anywhere to a proof of this result. I am interested in a reference to a proof of this result, and I think it will improve the article for future readers who (like me) wonder how this result is proved. [[User:John Smith Anderson|John Smith Anderson]] ([[User talk:John Smith Anderson|talk]]) 11:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
:This is essentially Problem 1.1 in "Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method" by Claes Johnson. (1) implies that u"-f is orthogonal to any v. Pick any point x inside the interval and restrict v to have support in delta-neighborhood of x. By the mean value theorem for integrals, there is a point c in that delta-neighborhood such that (u"-f)v is zero at c, i.e. such that (u"-f)(c)=0. Now by continuity (u"-f)(x)=0 which implies P1 since x was arbitrary. [[User:Tzanio|Tzanio]] ([[User talk:Tzanio|talk]]) 03:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
== Crystal plasticity FEM ==
Franz Roters is not the progenitor of CPFEM it existed long before he even had a PhD. He is, though, involved in the on-going development of DAMASK which is a crystal plasticity software package. [[Special:Contributions/2601:940:C081:4980:E3F1:FD00:EBB0:B69E|2601:940:C081:4980:E3F1:FD00:EBB0:B69E]] ([[User talk:2601:940:C081:4980:E3F1:FD00:EBB0:B69E|talk]]) 00:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
== No mention of element types? ==
The article currently doesn't mention (at least explicitly) a lot of element types (e.g. CST, LST, Isoparametric, etc)....should it? Or is the intent to not get quite that deep? (I.e. just a general overview of the method.)[[User:Rja13ww33|Rja13ww33]] ([[User talk:Rja13ww33|talk]]) 16:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:By the way, any suggestion for a source for element pics (that wouldn't be a copyright violation) would be welcome. Everything I can think of would create copyright problems. [[User:Rja13ww33|Rja13ww33]] ([[User talk:Rja13ww33|talk]]) 00:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||