Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Snervi - "→Disappointingly poor quality article: " |
|||
Line 22:
:::As this reference makes clear, both approaches are still taught and used: http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/courses.d/IFEM.d/IFEM.Ch01.d/IFEM.Ch01.pdf Wikipedia tries to present different approaches to a subject as long as they are supported by reliable sources, not pick the best one. If you have published reliable sources for your claims of the superiority of the variational viewpoint, the article can be structured to say something like, "Historically FEM was viewed as blah blah blah,. A more modern approach is blah blah blah, which as the following benefits..."--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
::::While it is understandable that it could be seen that way, there are no separate approaches and there is no superiority of the variational approach as it is one and the same. It is the way chosen to present the topic that can lead to misuse and misinterpretation. I agree with your statement from the historical perspective and acknowledge that "The history of the method" section should describe how the method was originally implemented, the shortcomings of that original implementation and how it was given a full mathematical framework later on. The idea to pick a superior formulation is flawed since (as I said before) there is just one, however, from the point of view of the use and implementation of the method, there are several ways to get it wrong. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Snervi|Snervi]] ([[User talk:Snervi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Snervi|contribs]]) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== History ==
| |||