Closed ddundo closed 5 months ago
Hm maybe, but some of them would surely be in common? e.g., the metric-related ones.
Sorry, it's not clear to me why metric-related parameters would "surely" be the same? :) I'd have though that it's not unreasonable to set different ones since on-the-fly approach cannot utilise space-time normalisation.
Besides, do we even use these metric parameters anywhere? Aren't the default parameters set in Animate and we always modify them with RiemannianMetric.set_parameters()
inside the adaptor function?
Yeah that's a good point. You're right - in light of our discussion the other day it would probably be good to drop these metric parameters anyway and leave that to Animate.
At the moment we are passing adaptation parameters (i.e. those in
goalie.options
) toMeshSeq
, which are then used infixed_point_iteration
methods. Since we will introduce the on-the-fly approach (#88) which might have different parameters, I think it would make more sense to pass these adaptation parameters directly tofixed_point_iteration
.What do you think @jwallwork23? I'm happy to take this on