From ebfebeb1d268a475d19ba445a2782a47161f2a74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bangerth Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:12:10 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Adjust documentation one place. git-svn-id: https://svn.dealii.org/trunk@20596 0785d39b-7218-0410-832d-ea1e28bc413d --- deal.II/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/deal.II/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox b/deal.II/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox index 7313be8b6e..856035ccdc 100644 --- a/deal.II/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox +++ b/deal.II/examples/step-16/doc/results.dox @@ -56,13 +56,15 @@ finest level. This theory is easily tested by comparing results when we use a constant coefficient: in that case, the number of iterations remains constant at 9 after the first three or four refinement steps. -We can also compare what this program produces with how -@ref step_5 "step-5" performed. To solve the same problem as in -step-5, the only change that is necessary is to replace the body of -the function LaplaceProblem::refine_grid by a call to -triangulation.refine_global(1) — the rest of the +We can also compare what this program produces with how @ref step_5 +"step-5" performed. To solve the same problem as in step-5, the only +two changes that are necessary are (i) to replace the body of the +function LaplaceProblem::refine_grid by a call to +triangulation.refine_global(1), and (ii) to use the same +SolverControl object and tolerance as in step-5 — the rest of the program remains unchanged. In that case, here is how the solvers used -in step-5 and the multigrid solver used in the current program compare: +in step-5 and the multigrid solver used in the current program +compare: -- 2.39.5
cellsstep-5step-16
20 13 6