Revision as of 02:27, 28 November 2014 edit ArnoldReinhold (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 31,355 edits →Disappointingly poor quality article: why replace? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:39, 29 November 2014 edit undo Snervi (talk \| contribs) 64 edits m →Disappointingly poor quality article Next edit →
Line 17: :I don't see why the paragraphs you say were written by Barna Szabo and Mark Ainsworth can't be added rather than have to replace what was there. They seem complementary to me.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold\|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold\|talk]]) 02:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ::Unfortunately, the previous text could not be edited because it started from the wrong premise. There were misleading statements on the nature of the Finite Element Method that come from constructing the idea of the method (and terminology) from the element up, when it should be the other way around, arriving to the element formulation after formulating a variational problem and a discretization strategy. The element based approach, used by early investigators, is now considered obsolete. It has hindered the understanding of what a finite element method is. == History ==

Talk:Finite element method: Difference between revisions