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

About Eq. (1.26) in section "Implicit methods" #2

Open
astroboylrx opened this issue Jun 11, 2016 · 7 comments
Open

About Eq. (1.26) in section "Implicit methods" #2

astroboylrx opened this issue Jun 11, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@astroboylrx
Copy link

astroboylrx commented Jun 11, 2016

I believe that Eq. (1.26) at here does not want expansions on time. I think the superscript of "t" on the right hand side should be changed from "n" to "n+1".
PS: I think the subscript of the Jacobin matrix, "0", may be a little confusing since the matrix uses digits (1-n) as the subscriptions of its elements. Maybe a few more explanations will make it clearer. Thanks.

@astroboylrx astroboylrx changed the title About Eq. 1.26 in Implicit methods About Eq. 1.26 in section "Implicit methods" Jun 11, 2016
@astroboylrx astroboylrx changed the title About Eq. 1.26 in section "Implicit methods" About Eq. (1.26) in section "Implicit methods" Jun 11, 2016
@zingale
Copy link
Member

zingale commented Jun 11, 2016

you are right -- that's a typo (the n instead of n+1). The proper superscript appears in 1.28.

I'll think about the notation issue as well.

@astroboylrx
Copy link
Author

I found another two typos:

Extend your 1-d finite-volume solver for advection to solver Burgers' equation.

Sorry for my trivial comments on small things. :-)

@astroboylrx
Copy link
Author

Maybe another typo in Exercise 3.10 at here:

However: you may find less than second-order is your initial conditions have discontinuities and you are limiting.

Maybe the original meaning is "you may find less second-order since your initial conditions have discontinuities and you are limiting"?
Thanks.

@astroboylrx
Copy link
Author

About Figure 3.13 (tex code here):
I couldn't reproduce it with minmod limiting method (the results are less than second order as described in Exercise 3.10). Later on, I found it was done by "centered" slope_type in your code, which means unlimited. I think the caption of Figure 3.13 is kind of misleading.

Thanks!

@zingale
Copy link
Member

zingale commented Jun 18, 2016

yes, you are right about FIgure 3.13. I've explicitly added several different limiters to that plot now.

zingale added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 18, 2016
@astroboylrx
Copy link
Author

astroboylrx commented Jun 22, 2016

Seems another typo in Eq. (3.58):
I think the sign between the two fractions inside the square brackets should be plus:

a_{i,j}^{n+1} = a_{i,j}^n - \Delta t \left [
   \frac{(ua)_{i+\myhalf,j}^{n+\myhalf} - (ua)_{i-\myhalf,j}^{n+\myhalf}}{\Delta x} +
   \frac{(va)_{i,j+\myhalf}^{n+\myhalf} - (va)_{i,j-\myhalf}^{n+\myhalf}}{\Delta y} \right ]

Thank you! :-)

@zingale
Copy link
Member

zingale commented Jun 22, 2016

yes, you are correct

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants