Denote the directio in the mixed BCs to make it clearer which direction?
[x] Is it even valid to go both backwards and forwards with the L_1^-? Do both make sense and non-trivial solutions? (Short answer: yes. Depending on which direction you go, only one side of boundary is affected. If it is going forward, only the UB is affected and vice versa, so if you go forward and use L_1^- it's not being affected as the last column is already a column of zeros)
[x] Consider separating the bottom and top BCs in the document to make the 4 cases more clear. (Resolved by a9e84c7)
[x] The current (54) to (58) is wrong unless you are mixing the directions. (Resolved by a9e84c7)
[x] (54) to (58) has 2 cases for forwards and backwards, so should be repeated (for LB and UB each) (Resolved by a9e84c7)
[x] Two separate cases of (72) and (77) (Resolved by 090e49f)
[x] Same with (78) and (79) (Resolved by 090e49f)
[x] Two cases of (109) to (112) as well. (Resolved by a9e84c7)
[x] Same with 118 with 123 (Resolved by e6620c3)
[x] 124 and 125 (Resolved by e6620c3)
[x] Check the tridiag/banded for all of them because there will be multiple cases as well. (Resolved by
e418c44 and 7c26525)
[x] Add boundary extrapolation scheme for different directions in Appendix (Appendix B) (Resolved by cf908b6)
~- [ ] Adam should review end to end.~ (after #159)
Denote the directio in the mixed BCs to make it clearer which direction?
L_1^-? Do both make sense and non-trivial solutions? (Short answer: yes. Depending on which direction you go, only one side of boundary is affected. If it is going forward, only the UB is affected and vice versa, so if you go forward and useL_1^-it's not being affected as the last column is already a column of zeros)