Companion form — where it appears
Named by 7 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A matrix that depends on its own eigenvalue
A damped structure does not produce Ax = λx. It produces (λ²M + λC + K)x = 0, where the matrix whose null vector is wanted is a function of the number being solved for — so there is nothing to factorise, an n × n problem has 2n answers, and the eigenvectors cannot be a basis.
Six routes to one spectrum
Three linearisations of one quadratic, each reduced to a standard eigenvalue problem two ways. All six have exactly the same eigenvalues in exact arithmetic. On a well-scaled problem they differ by noise; on a badly scaled one by a factor of forty; and two of the six are the same matrix.
Two approximants and one matrix size
A polynomial approximant linearises to nd rows and a rational one to n(m+1), so the fair contest fixes the matrix and varies the basis. On an easy target set the two are indistinguishable and the ordering flips with the noise; on one that reaches a branch point the rational pulls away by two orders.
The roots are not the coefficients
A polynomial whose roots are the integers one to twenty, expanded exactly, handed to the routine every library uses. The computed roots are wrong in the third digit, the computation is backward stable for the matrix it factorised, and above degree eighteen the coefficients are not double-precision numbers at all.
The number that moves when the problem does
Two quantities are offered as the condition number of one eigenvalue. One is unmoved to eight digits by a change of variable that is exact in both directions, and grows like the square root of the chain's length. The other is inflated by ten orders by that change of variable, and is ten times too large before anything has been done at all.
The middle group needs no reduction of its own
A quadratic whose two groups of eigenvalues sit far apart needs two reductions, one per end. A cubic can have three groups, and the middle one is inverted by neither reduction, so the worry was that it would need a third route — a shift-and-invert at the middle tropical root. Build order-four cubics with three groups up to eight decades apart and measure every eigenvalue: the leading reduction keeps the middle group at 10⁻¹¹ or better at every separation, the trailing reduction loses it to 5·10⁻⁹ by eight decades, and the reversed polynomial's leading reduction, which inverts the same constant coefficient as the trailing one, keeps it at 2·10⁻¹⁴. The middle group's loss belongs to the pencil, not to the end. Two reductions still give all twelve eigenvalues to 2·10⁻¹¹. And the tropical scaling at the small root, which rescues the small group when every coefficient shares one diagonal form, does nothing for it once the coefficients are perturbed out of that form.
A basis that has to know where the roots are
Wilkinson's polynomial loses its roots in the third figure at degree twenty when they are computed from its monomial coefficients, and the repair offered was to change the basis: in Chebyshev coefficients, with the colleague matrix, the conditioning 'does not degrade exponentially with degree'. Expanded exactly in that basis and rounded once, the integers' roots come back ten orders better at degree twenty — 4.4·10⁻¹³ against 7.6·10⁻³ — and still degrade exponentially, at a third of a decade a degree, to 2.8·10⁻⁴ at forty. Place the same number of roots at the interval's Chebyshev points instead and they stay at 10⁻¹⁴ at every degree, while the monomial route loses them as fast as the integers. The basis does not repair the problem; it has to match where the roots are.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Backward errorCondition numberLinearisationMatrix polynomialChebyshev basisExact ground truthQuadratic eigenvalue problemScalingCharacteristic polynomialWilkinson polynomialApproximation before linearisationAsymptotic analysis