[cig-commits] commit: Small edits.

[Mercurial]

changeset:   121:fe2ed4131587
tag:         tip
user:        Brad Aagaard <baagaard at usgs.gov>
date:        Fri May 04 11:29:13 2012 -0700
files:       faultRup.tex
description:
Small edits.


diff -r 061f03f57e11 -r fe2ed4131587 faultRup.tex
--- a/faultRup.tex	Fri May 04 11:23:32 2012 -0700
+++ b/faultRup.tex	Fri May 04 11:29:13 2012 -0700
@@ -970,15 +970,10 @@ faster convergence that the Additive Sch
 faster convergence that the Additive Schwarz method. We combine the
 field split preconditioner with the AMG preconditioner, such that we
 precondition the DOF for each global coordinate axis
-independently. Table~\ref{tab:solvertest:preconditioner:iterates} shows the number of iterates
-required to solve a problem with prescribed slip on three faults
-\brad{Setup solver test for weak scaling computations or use
-  strike-slip quasi-static benchmark? Add figure describing
-  problem. Add problem description to PyLith manual and cite manual for
-  details?}  to a relative tolerance of $10^{-8}$. It clearly shows
-the superiority of our custom fault preconditioner. It also reveals
-that while is scales fairly well, the custom preconditioner does have
-a dependence on problem size.
+independently. See Section~\ref{sec:solvertest} for a comparison of
+preconditioner performance for an application involved a static
+simulation with multiple faults. It shows the clear superiority of our
+custom fault preconditioner.
 
 \subsection{Dynamic Simulations}