Hello!
It's unlikely that this will affect anyone, but I've found some incorrect behavior in the treatment of *upper-face* symmetries in ReflectionSymmetry.
I propose the attached patch. In brief, since the loop runs over the "source" points in descending order and the "destination" points in ascending order, then the index offset between the two sets should just be 2 (or 1 if one is staggering the origin), rather than twice the ghost size as in the lower-face case.
The change affects branches that are only executed upon reflection_upper_*, so most people won't see a difference. Any input?
Eloisa
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:56:31PM +0200, Eloisa Bentivegna wrote:
I propose the attached patch. In brief, since the loop runs over the "source" points in descending order and the "destination" points in ascending order, then the index offset between the two sets should just be 2 (or 1 if one is staggering the origin), rather than twice the ghost size as in the lower-face case.
The change affects branches that are only executed upon reflection_upper_*, so most people won't see a difference. Any input?
I believe the patch is correct. However, it needed some serious head-wrapping on my side, so that I would like to have someone else look at the patch as well.
Frank
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Frank Loeffler knarf@cct.lsu.edu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:56:31PM +0200, Eloisa Bentivegna wrote:
I propose the attached patch. In brief, since the loop runs over the "source" points in descending order and the "destination" points in ascending order, then the index offset between the two sets should just be 2 (or 1 if one is staggering the origin), rather than twice the ghost size as in the lower-face case.
The change affects branches that are only executed upon reflection_upper_*, so most people won't see a difference. Any input?
I believe the patch is correct. However, it needed some serious head-wrapping on my side, so that I would like to have someone else look at the patch as well.
Eloisa
Yes, your patch is correct. I used Mathematica to solve for ioff and received the same expression as you. I have applied the patch.
-erik
users@lists.einsteintoolkit.org
-
Eloisa Bentivegna -
Erik Schnetter -
Frank Loeffler