English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The object of this note is to correct an error in the proof of Theorem 3.4 of the paper [An analysis of a broken P1-nonconforming finite element method for interface problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 48 (2010), pp. 2117–2134]. As a result, Theorem 3.4 requires a higher regularity than the usual elliptic interface problems can have, i.e., β∇p ∈ H1/2+ (Ω)2 (0 < < 1/2). Hence we point out that even though the result now holds under this extra regularity assumption, the regularity is unlikely to hold for general interface problems. Thus the result has some limited usage.

Erratum: An Analysis of a Broken P_1-Nonconforming Finite Element Method for Interface Problems