From 53caa4612295e163d130cc8196f03dda3c7de4ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Wells Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:05:40 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Fix some typos in step-16. Thanks to @kostyfisik for pointing out the 'that that' typo, which prompted me to fix some other small ones. --- examples/step-16/doc/intro.dox | 2 +- examples/step-16/doc/results.dox | 4 ++-- examples/step-16/step-16.cc | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/examples/step-16/doc/intro.dox b/examples/step-16/doc/intro.dox index c14a03961e..2622eefd37 100644 --- a/examples/step-16/doc/intro.dox +++ b/examples/step-16/doc/intro.dox @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ degrees of freedom that are defined on the refined cells, but does not extend to that part of the domain that is not refined. While this guarantees that the overall effort grows as ${\cal O}(N)$ as necessary for optimal multigrid complexity, it leads to problems when defining -where to smoothen and what boundary conditions to pose for the operators +where to smooth and what boundary conditions to pose for the operators defined on individual levels if the level boundary is not an external boundary. These questions are discussed in detail in the article cited above. diff --git a/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox b/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox index 9d2201d5b6..3de588e1c5 100644 --- a/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox +++ b/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ On the finest mesh, the solution looks like this:

-More impoartantly, we would like to see if the multigrid method really +More importantly, we would like to see if the multigrid method really improved the solver performance. Therefore, here is the textual output: @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ it shows the power of multigrid methods. We encourage you to switch on timing output by calling the function LogStream::log_execution_time() of the deallog object and compare to step 6. You will see that the multigrid method has quite an overhead -on coarse meshes, but that that it always beats other methods on fine +on coarse meshes, but that it always beats other methods on fine meshes because of its optimal complexity. A close inspection of this program's performance shows that it is mostly diff --git a/examples/step-16/step-16.cc b/examples/step-16/step-16.cc index ced76104e6..d7bc1e474e 100644 --- a/examples/step-16/step-16.cc +++ b/examples/step-16/step-16.cc @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ namespace Step16 // MeshWorker hides most of that from us, and thus the difference // between this function and the previous lies only in the setup of // the assembler and the different iterators in the loop. - // Also, fixing up the matrices in the end is a little more comlicated. + // Also, fixing up the matrices in the end is a little more complicated. template void LaplaceProblem::assemble_multigrid () { -- 2.39.5