ListOfChanges.tex

%%
%% Example
%%

\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}

%\usepackage[cp1250]{inputenc}
%\usepackage[czech]{babel}          %Windows
%\usepackage{czech}

\begin{document}


{
\begin{center}
{\Large\bf Revision of manuscript AMC-D-14-03790 
\newline
\newline
\emph{Partition of unity methods for approximation of point water sources in porous media}}
\end{center}
}

We would like to thank to reviewers for their opinions, suggestions and constructive remarks.
We edited our manuscript which resulted in following list of changes:

\begin{enumerate}
\item image %1
\item %2
      We believe that the derivation of the weak form of the complex model is eligible
      although we aimed this article mainly at measuring convergence, PUM comparison and integration technique.
      One reason is that it shows exactly what the differences from the model of Gracie and Craig are.
      Secondly, we think obtaining this weak form is worth the effort, because it displays the elliptic
      character of all the terms which one can make a profit out of while proving existence and uniqueness of the solution.
      Finally this form agrees with our implementation which enables multiple aquifers and wells.
      Therefore, we also added link to GitHub repository with our experimental code in the introduction.
      
      We added some comments in the introduction and end of \emph{Model} section regarding this matter.
      We also supported arguments for simplification to one aquifer in the beginning of \emph{Discretization}.
\item weighted XFEM %3
\item convergence rate %4
\item responce to complex time-dependent model %5

% minor changes
\item Corrected revision 6. %6
\item Corrected revision 7. %7
\item Corrected revision 8. %8
\item Corrected revision 9. %9
\item Corrected revision 10. %10

\item expand discussion 2D -> 1D quadrature rule %11

\item Corrected revision 12. %12
\item Corrected revision 13, meaning of $f^{(2n)}$ explained -- derivative. %13
\item Corrected revision 14. %14
\item Corrected revision 15. %15
\item Corrected revision 16. %16

\item explain%17

\item explain 'breakpoint'
      There was wrong reference to Figure 8, instead of Figure 9, showing dependence of the error on enrichment radius. %18
      This explains also next remark, because Figure 9 was not referenced at all.
      This is now corrected. %18
\item Corrected (explained above). %19
\item Corrected %20

\end{enumerate} 


\end{document}