From: Bruno Turcksin Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 19:35:46 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Fix typos X-Git-Tag: v9.3.0-rc1~296^2 X-Git-Url: https://gitweb.dealii.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=refs%2Fpull%2F11945%2Fhead;p=dealii.git Fix typos --- diff --git a/include/deal.II/particles/particle_handler.h b/include/deal.II/particles/particle_handler.h index fb9f6a4545..267dfe30af 100644 --- a/include/deal.II/particles/particle_handler.h +++ b/include/deal.II/particles/particle_handler.h @@ -205,10 +205,10 @@ namespace Particles * @note While this function is used in step-19, it is not an efficient * function to use if the number of particles is large. That is because * to find the particles that are located in one cell costs - * ${\cal O)(\log N)$ where $N$ is the number of overall particles. Since + * ${\cal O}(\log N)$ where $N$ is the number of overall particles. Since * you will likely do this for every cell, and assuming that the number * of particles and the number of cells are roughly proportional, - * you end up with an ${\cal O)(N \log N)$ algorithm. A better approach + * you end up with an ${\cal O}(N \log N)$ algorithm. A better approach * is to use the fact that internally, particles are arranged in the * order of the active cells they are in. In other words, if you iterate * over all particles, you will encounter them in the same order as @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ namespace Particles * to the next cell, you increment the particle iterator as well until * you find a particle located on that next cell. Counting how many * steps this took will then give you the number you are looking for, - * at a cost of ${\cal O)(\log N)$ when accumulated over all cells. + * at a cost of ${\cal O}(\log N)$ when accumulated over all cells. * This is the approach used in step-70, for example. The approach is * also detailed in the "Possibilities for extensions section" * of step-19. @@ -238,10 +238,10 @@ namespace Particles * @note While this function is used in step-19, it is not an efficient * function to use if the number of particles is large. That is because * to find the particles that are located in one cell costs - * ${\cal O)(\log N)$ where $N$ is the number of overall particles. Since + * ${\cal O}(\log N)$ where $N$ is the number of overall particles. Since * you will likely do this for every cell, and assuming that the number * of particles and the number of cells are roughly proportional, - * you end up with an ${\cal O)(N \log N)$ algorithm. A better approach + * you end up with an ${\cal O}(N \log N)$ algorithm. A better approach * is to use the fact that internally, particles are arranged in the * order of the active cells they are in. In other words, if you iterate * over all particles, you will encounter them in the same order as @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ namespace Particles * to the next cell, you increment the particle iterator as well until * you find a particle located on that next cell. This is the approach * used in step-70, for example, and has an overall cost of - * ${\cal O)(\log N)$ when accumulated over all cells. The approach is + * ${\cal O}(\log N)$ when accumulated over all cells. The approach is * also detailed in the "Possibilities for extensions section" * of step-19. */ @@ -269,10 +269,10 @@ namespace Particles * @note While this function is used in step-19, it is not an efficient * function to use if the number of particles is large. That is because * to find the particles that are located in one cell costs - * ${\cal O)(\log N)$ where $N$ is the number of overall particles. Since + * ${\cal O}(\log N)$ where $N$ is the number of overall particles. Since * you will likely do this for every cell, and assuming that the number * of particles and the number of cells are roughly proportional, - * you end up with an ${\cal O)(N \log N)$ algorithm. A better approach + * you end up with an ${\cal O}(N \log N)$ algorithm. A better approach * is to use the fact that internally, particles are arranged in the * order of the active cells they are in. In other words, if you iterate * over all particles, you will encounter them in the same order as @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ namespace Particles * to the next cell, you increment the particle iterator as well until * you find a particle located on that next cell. This is the approach * used in step-70, for example, and has an overall cost of - * ${\cal O)(\log N)$ when accumulated over all cells. The approach is + * ${\cal O}(\log N)$ when accumulated over all cells. The approach is * also detailed in the "Possibilities for extensions section" * of step-19. */