You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The symmetry projection algorithm implemented as u -> (u + sigma u)/2 assumes the symmetry sigma obeys sigma^2 = 1. This is true for coordinate inversion symmetries, half box shifts, and combinations thereof, but it's not for phase shifts of other fractions. E.g. a symmetry operation with sigma^3 = 1 would require projection u -> (u + sigma u + sigma^2 u)/3.
I believe that in periodic channel flows, you can always reconfigure the domain so that any symmetries involve only half-box shifts. (This is not true in pipes, however!) But it's still possible for users to configure domains and symmetries suboptimally, say integrating a field with Lx/3-shift symmetry on an Lx-wide domain.
Should we generallize the projection operation so that it works for sigma^n =1 for arbitrary n? We'd probably have to add an order field (n) to the Symmetry class and determine during construction the smallest n for which sigma^n = 1. I think it would be fine to limit that to fairly small n, like n<=4 or 10. The test would have to be |sigma^n - 1| < small number in order to handle Lx/3 shifts etc.
This issue came up while writing the channelflow-2 paper.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The symmetry projection algorithm implemented as u -> (u + sigma u)/2 assumes the symmetry sigma obeys sigma^2 = 1. This is true for coordinate inversion symmetries, half box shifts, and combinations thereof, but it's not for phase shifts of other fractions. E.g. a symmetry operation with sigma^3 = 1 would require projection u -> (u + sigma u + sigma^2 u)/3.
I believe that in periodic channel flows, you can always reconfigure the domain so that any symmetries involve only half-box shifts. (This is not true in pipes, however!) But it's still possible for users to configure domains and symmetries suboptimally, say integrating a field with Lx/3-shift symmetry on an Lx-wide domain.
Should we generallize the projection operation so that it works for sigma^n =1 for arbitrary n? We'd probably have to add an order field (n) to the Symmetry class and determine during construction the smallest n for which sigma^n = 1. I think it would be fine to limit that to fairly small n, like n<=4 or 10. The test would have to be |sigma^n - 1| < small number in order to handle Lx/3 shifts etc.
This issue came up while writing the channelflow-2 paper.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: