* drop this first term.
*
* What this means for the present case: first the computation of
- * gradients of Nedelec shape functions is wrong. Second, you will not
- * notice this usually, for two reasons:
+ * gradients of Nedelec shape functions is wrong in general. Second,
+ * in the following two cases you will not notice this:
*
- * The first reason is that the gradient of the Jacobian vanishes if
- * the cells are mapped by an affine mapping, to which the usual
- * bilinear mapping reduces if the cell is a parallelogram. Then the
- * gradient of the shape functions is computed exact, since the first
- * term is zero.
+ * - If the cell is a parallelogram, then the usual bi-/trilinear mapping
+ * is in fact affine. In that case, the gradient of the Jacobian vanishes
+ * and the gradient of the shape functions is computed exactly, since the
+ * first term is zero.
*
- * Second, with the Nedelec elements, you will usually want to compute
- * the curl, and extract and sum up the respective elements of the
- * full gradient tensor. However, the curl of the Jacobian vanishes,
- * so for the curl of shape functions the first term is irrelevant,
- * and the curl will be computed correctly as well.
+ * - With the Nedelec elements, you will usually want to compute
+ * the curl, not the general derivative tensor. However, the curl of the
+ * Jacobian vanishes, so for the curl of shape functions the first term
+ * is irrelevant, and the curl will always be computed correctly even on
+ * cells that are not parallelograms.
*
*
* <h3>Interpolation</h3>
* element of degree @p p.
*/
FE_Nedelec (const unsigned int p);
-
+
/**
* Return a string that uniquely
* identifies a finite