Lagrange multiplier — where it appears
Named by 2 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The zero that is not a missing entry
A constrained minimisation produces a matrix with a zero block, and the zero is a theorem rather than a sparsity pattern. No pivot order makes it positive definite, no precision changes that, and Cholesky does not fail somewhere on it — it fails at the first constraint row, on a number the problem already contained.
A multiplier is a force
A third constraint nearly parallel to the first made the multipliers of a constrained fit rise in exact proportion to κ(B), which looked like the conditioning measured a second, dearer way. It was not. Give the third constraint a datum that asks for nothing new and, at the same κ(B) = 4.6·10¹², the multipliers are eighteen thousand times smaller; give it a strain δ and they are 0.0133 δ/ε², a force on a lever of length ε. What they measure is what the constraint asks. What they do not measure is the error of the best route, which sits at the same level whether the constraint asks for nothing or for a displacement of 3·10⁹.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Condition numberExact ground truthSaddle-point systemsCholeskyConstrained minimisationEquality constrained least-squaresIndefinite matrixInertiaNull-space methodSchur complementSensitivitySymmetric indefinite