Unimodular — where it appears
Named by 7 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The rank depends on the ring
A floating-point rank is a decision about a threshold. Remove the arithmetic error entirely and the threshold goes away — and the answer still is not a property of the array of numbers, because one integer matrix has rank six over the rationals, five modulo three and four modulo two, with nothing rounded and nothing decided.
What a determinant does not determine
Two integer matrices can have the same determinant, the same rank and the same size, and define genuinely different maps. What separates them is a list of integers each dividing the next — computed here twice, once by unimodular elimination and once from the gcds of every minor, which share no algorithm at all.
A basis that describes its lattice badly
The same set of points has infinitely many bases, they are all correct, and they are not equally useful. One measurement separates them — the product of the vectors' lengths over the lattice determinant — and the determinant is the invariant the reduction may not change, which is what makes the reduction checkable.
Rounding a coordinate in the wrong basis
The nearest lattice point is found by writing the target in the basis and rounding each coordinate, which is three lines of arithmetic and is wrong. On a basis skewed by forty it lands a mean of 26 times too far and a worst of 40.02 — the basis's own orthogonality defect, to three figures — and the identical three lines on the reduced basis are exact at every target.
The knob and the rounding
The Lovász parameter is the number a lattice reduction is specified by, and moving it from 0.50 to 0.99 strengthens the proved bound from 16.00 to 1.83, costs 91 per cent more steps, and returns a basis with the same orthogonality defect. The one rounding nobody writes down decides everything: above 2⁵³ the reduction returns a basis 12,345 times worse than it should, with the determinant invariant equal to one throughout.
Every entry under the determinant
The Hermite form's swell was put down to its transform — the record of how the answer was reached — while the form's own entries stayed bounded. Instrumented separately, the form's intermediates swell exactly as much: 3,371 bits against the transform's 3,366 for a random 48 × 48 matrix whose determinant has 219. Carried out modulo the determinant instead, every entry stays within the determinant's width, the answer is identical on every matrix to n = 80, and it is almost always the identity with the whole determinant in its last pivot and last column. What the bound does not buy is speed: counted in bit operations the modular route does more work until just past n = 72, because its steps multiply numbers the determinant's size where plain elimination multiplies wide numbers by small quotients.
The swell was one-sided
The Smith form can be computed modulo the determinant, and it was predicted to return the right invariant factors, to stay within twice the determinant's width, and to cost about what the modular Hermite form costs instead of the far larger count of the plain Smith routine. The first three hold. The comparison does not: the plain Smith routine never needed a far larger count. With column operations as well as row operations, its smallest-entry pivot is a unit after a step or two, every entry it holds is a minor of the matrix, and nothing it writes is wider than the determinant — at every size to sixty-four, at a fiftieth of the modular route's work. The swell the Hermite form suffered belonged to doing elimination with one hand.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Exact arithmeticLatticeDeterminantSmith normal formHermite normal formInvariant factorsLattice reductionOrthogonality defectModular arithmeticBit lengthCatastrophic cancellationClosest vector