Civil Rights
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.
Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.
Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.
Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.
Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.
In 1968 Shirley Chisholm became the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress. In 1972 she launched a campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, breaking another political barrier.
MORE →Reflects the personal views, recollections, and perspective of the author, Mike Davis.
This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985
This article needs more citations. (February 2024) |
In numerical analysis, the Schur complement method, named after Issai Schur, is the basic and the earliest version of non-overlapping domain decomposition method, also called iterative substructuring. A finite element problem is split into non-overlapping subdomains, and the unknowns in the interiors of the subdomains are eliminated. The remaining Schur complement system on the unknowns associated with subdomain interfaces is solved by the conjugate gradient method.
Suppose we want to solve the Poisson equation
on some domain Ω. When we discretize this problem we get an N-dimensional linear system AU = F. The Schur complement method splits up the linear system into sub-problems. To do so, divide Ω into two subdomains Ω1, Ω2 which share an interface Γ. Let U1, U2 and UΓ be the degrees of freedom associated with each subdomain and with the interface. We can then write the linear system as
where F1, F2 and FΓ are the components of the load vector in each region.
The Schur complement method proceeds by noting that we can find the values on the interface by solving the smaller system
for the interface values UΓ, where we define the Schur complement matrix
The important thing to note is that the computation of any quantities involving or involves solving decoupled Dirichlet problems on each domain, and these can be done in parallel. Consequently, we need not store the Schur complement matrix explicitly; it is sufficient to know how to multiply a vector by it.
Once we know the values on the interface, we can find the interior values using the two relations
which can both be done in parallel.
The multiplication of a vector by the Schur complement is a discrete version of the Poincaré–Steklov operator, also called the Dirichlet to Neumann mapping.
There are two benefits of this method. First, the elimination of the interior unknowns on the subdomains, that is the solution of the Dirichlet problems, can be done in parallel. Second, passing to the Schur complement reduces condition number and thus tends to decrease the number of iterations. For second-order problems, such as the Laplace equation or linear elasticity, the matrix of the system has condition number of the order 1/h2, where h is the characteristic element size. The Schur complement, however, has condition number only of the order 1/h.
For performances, the Schur complement method is combined with preconditioning, at least a diagonal preconditioner. The Neumann–Neumann method and the Neumann–Dirichlet method are the Schur complement method with particular kinds of preconditioners.
When a fast function is utilized, especially in low cost parallel computers, the Schur complement method is relatively efficient.[1]
Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.
In numerical analysis, the Schur complement method, named after Issai Schur, is the basic and the earliest version of non-overlapping domain decomposition method, also called iterative substructuring. A finite element problem is split into non-overlapping subdomains, and the unknowns in the interiors of the subdomains are eliminated. The remaining Schur complement system on the unknowns associated with subdomain interfaces is solved by the conjugate gradient method.
This is a list of things named after Issai Schur. Frobenius–Schur indicator Herz–Schur multiplier Jordan–Schur theorem Lehmer–Schur algorithm Schur algebra Schur class Schur's conjecture Schur complement method Schur complement Schur-convex function Schur decomposition Schur functor Schur index Schur's inequality Schur's lemma (from Riemannian geometry) Schur's lemma Schur module Schur multiplier Schur cover Schur orthogonality relations Schur polynomial Schur product Schur product theorem Schur test Schur's property Schur's theorem Schur's number Schur–Horn theorem Schur–Weyl duality Schur–Zassenhaus theorem
In mathematics, Neumann–Neumann methods are domain decomposition preconditioners named so because they solve a Neumann problem on each subdomain on both sides of the interface between the subdomains. Just like all domain decomposition methods, so that the number of iterations does not grow with the number of subdomains, Neumann–Neumann methods require the solution of a coarse problem to provide global communication. The balancing domain decomposition is a Neumann–Neumann method with a special kind of coarse problem. More specifically, consider a domain Ω, on which we wish to solve the Poisson equation − Δ u = f , u | ∂ Ω = 0 {\displaystyle -\Delta u=f,\qquad u|_{\partial \Omega }=0} for some function f. Split the domain into two non-overlapping subdomains Ω1 and Ω2 with common boundary Γ and let u1 and u2 be the values of u in each subdomain. At the interface between the two subdomains, the two solutions must satisfy the matching conditions u 1 = u 2 , ∂ n 1 u 1 = ∂ n 2 u 2 {\displaystyle u_{1}=u_{2},\qquad \partial _{n_{1}}u_{1}=\partial _{n_{2}}u_{2}} where n i {\textstyle n_{i}} is the unit normal vector to Γ in each subdomain. An iterative method with iterations k = 0, 1, ... for the approximation of each ui (i = 1, 2) that satisfies the matching conditions is to first solve the Dirichlet problems − Δ u i ( k ) = f i in Ω i , u i ( k ) | ∂ Ω = 0 , u i ( k ) | Γ = λ ( k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}-&\Delta u_{i}^{(k)}=f_{i}~~{\text{in}}~~\Omega _{i},\\[1.3ex]&\left.u_{i}^{(k)}\right|_{\partial \Omega }=0,\quad \left.u_{i}^{(k)}\right|_{\Gamma }=\lambda ^{(k)}\end{aligned}}} for some function λ(k) on Γ, where λ(0) is any inexpensive initial guess. We then solve the two Neumann problems − Δ ψ i ( k ) = 0 in Ω i , ψ i ( k ) | ∂ Ω = 0 , ∂ n i ψ i ( k ) | Γ = ω ( ∂ n 1 u 1 ( k ) + ∂ n 2 u 2 ( k ) ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}-&\Delta \psi _{i}^{(k)}=0~~{\text{in}}~\Omega _{i},\\[1.3ex]&\left.\psi _{i}^{(k)}\right|_{\partial \Omega }=0,\quad \left.\partial _{n_{i}}\psi _{i}^{(k)}\right|_{\Gamma }=\omega \left(\partial _{n_{1}}u_{1}^{(k)}+\partial _{n_{2}}u_{2}^{(k)}\right).\end{aligned}}} We then obtain the next iterate by setting λ ( k + 1 ) = λ ( k ) − ω ( θ 1 ψ 1 ( k ) + θ 2 ψ 2 ( k ) ) on Γ {\displaystyle \lambda ^{(k+1)}=\lambda ^{(k)}-\omega \left(\theta _{1}\psi _{1}^{(k)}+\theta _{2}\psi _{2}^{(k)}\right)~~{\text{on}}~\Gamma } for some parameters ω, θ1 and θ2. This procedure can be viewed as a Richardson iteration for the iterative solution of the equations arising from the Schur complement method. This continuous iteration can be discretized by the finite element method and then solved—in parallel—on a computer. The extension to more subdomains is straightforward, but using this method as stated as a preconditioner for the Schur complement system is not scalable with the number of subdomains; hence the need for a global coarse solve.
In numerical analysis, the balancing domain decomposition method (BDD) is an iterative method to find the solution of a symmetric positive definite system of linear algebraic equations arising from the finite element method. In each iteration, it combines the solution of local problems on non-overlapping subdomains with a coarse problem created from the subdomain nullspaces. BDD requires only solution of subdomain problems rather than access to the matrices of those problems, so it is applicable to situations where only the solution operators are available, such as in oil reservoir simulation by mixed finite elements. In its original formulation, BDD performs well only for 2nd order problems, such elasticity in 2D and 3D. For 4th order problems, such as plate bending, it needs to be modified by adding to the coarse problem special basis functions that enforce continuity of the solution at subdomain corners, which makes it however more expensive. The BDDC method uses the same corner basis functions as, but in an additive rather than multiplicative fashion. The dual counterpart to BDD is FETI, which enforces the equality of the solution between the subdomain by Lagrange multipliers. The base versions of BDD and FETI are not mathematically equivalent, though a special version of FETI designed to be robust for hard problems has the same eigenvalues and thus essentially the same performance as BDD. The operator of the system solved by BDD is the same as obtained by eliminating the unknowns in the interiors of the subdomain, thus reducing the problem to the Schur complement on the subdomain interface. Since the BDD preconditioner involves the solution of Neumann problems on all subdomain, it is a member of the Neumann–Neumann class of methods, so named because they solve a Neumann problem on both sides of the interface between subdomains. In the simplest case, the coarse space of BDD consists of functions constant on each subdomain and averaged on the interfaces. More generally, on each subdomain, the coarse space needs to only contain the nullspace of the problem as a subspace.
Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.
MORE →Mae Jemison, aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1992.