Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[NL] Fix Newton max iterations counter comparison. #1341

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 10, 2016

Conversation

endJunction
Copy link
Member

Otherwise it behaves different than the Picard iterations: NonlinearSolver.cpp, Picard solve method

@endJunction
Copy link
Member Author

Also I find the iterations count starting from 1 rather unusual for the c-language family, but the TES process depends on the numbering of non-linear iterations...

@chleh
Copy link
Collaborator

chleh commented Aug 9, 2016

Concerning the start from one: I find it rather awkward to talk about a 0th iteration when talking to somebody. That's why I chose it the way it is.

@nagelt
Copy link
Member

nagelt commented Aug 9, 2016

0th iteration implies for me the initial guess of the residual. I.e. before the "first" iteration.

@norihiro-w
Copy link
Collaborator

+1

@norihiro-w
Copy link
Collaborator

related to TN comment, i have a remark for the future. it looks current implementation computes residual and Jacobian at the same time, though only residual shoud be evaluated in some cases such as with line search, jagged Jacobian evaluation.

@chleh
Copy link
Collaborator

chleh commented Aug 10, 2016

@norihiro-w In connection with the numerical Jacobian assembly I created an interface that will provide different possibilities for Jacobian/residual computations. Maybe this interface will already suffice for the use-case you mentioned.

@endJunction endJunction merged commit eb52a4c into ufz:master Aug 10, 2016
@endJunction endJunction deleted the NewtonIterationCountFix branch August 10, 2016 15:36
@ogsbot
Copy link
Member

ogsbot commented Jun 19, 2020

OpenGeoSys development has been moved to GitLab.

See this pull request on GitLab.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants