Every essay — page 3
Elimination, and the swap
Gaussian elimination is the first algorithm anybody learns and the row interchange is the part nobody is given a reason for. Here it is run without one, on a matrix where that fails — quietly, returning an answer of the right shape — and the growth factor that governs the whole story is plotted against a bound it never attains.
A rule that is correct and unusable
Cramer's rule gives every component of the solution in closed form, in terms of determinants, and it is a theorem. On two-by-two systems whose rows are nearly parallel it returns an answer with a backward error of 458 units of roundoff where elimination returns 1.3 — on a matrix whose condition number is 32,000 and which elimination solved perfectly.
The inverse that is never formed
x = A⁻¹b is how the solution of a linear system is written and it is not how it is computed. The usual reason given is cost — three times the arithmetic. The real reason is that one of the two routes is backward stable and the other is not, and at κ = 10¹⁴ they differ by twelve orders of magnitude in the number that says whose fault a wrong answer is.
The gap refinement can close
Multiplying by a computed inverse is not backward stable, and refinement at the working precision repairs it. That much is settled. The claim beside it — that the forward error does not move — was read at one conditioning and four corrections too late. Swept over ten, it moves at every one, and it lands on the LU route's own number after a single correction.
A pivot that searches one row and one column
Rook pivoting looks down a column for its largest entry, along that entry's row for a larger one, and back down that entry's column, until it finds an entry largest in both. On Gaussian matrices of size 64 it keeps the median growth factor at 2.53 against partial pivoting's 4.06 and complete pivoting's 1.88, and it compares 6,987 entries against 2,080 and 89,440. On Wilkinson's matrix it holds the growth at exactly 2 where partial pivoting reaches 9.2·10¹⁸. And on a matrix built to make it walk it compares 113,376 entries — more than complete pivoting.
A worst case is as fragile as its margin
Wilkinson's matrix grows by 5.5·10¹¹ under partial pivoting, and adding Gaussian noise of 10⁻¹⁴ to every entry takes its median growth to exactly 2. The shooting matrix from a boundary-value problem grows by 1.1·10⁴, and noise ten million times larger leaves it untouched. The difference is what each worst case rests on. Wilkinson's rests on exact ties between candidate pivots, which any noise breaks. The shooting matrix's rests on a choice made by a margin of 5.6·10⁻³, and between 10⁻⁶ and 10⁻³ its median growth is that margin divided by the noise, times a constant between one half and four thirds.
The growth a boundary-value problem supplies
Large growth under partial pivoting is usually said to need a matrix built for it. A two-point boundary-value problem solved by multiple shooting supplies one without being asked: its growth factor is e^(5T/6)/2 to four figures — 1.1·10⁴ at an interval of 12, 1.3·10⁵ at 15 — on a matrix whose condition number never exceeds 8.3, while rook and complete pivoting keep it below 2. And it is the finer shooting grid that grows: below a step of 0.3397 the choice partial pivoting makes turns on one entry against one, and above it there is no growth at all.
Which of the choices is doing the work
Elimination makes n − 1 decisions and they are not worth the same. On 8×8 standard normal matrices, removing the first pivot search and leaving the other six multiplies the median growth factor by 1.624; removing the last multiplies it by 1.000. The cost falls monotonically along the run, and the worst single matrix in the sweep grows by 2,366 when one early decision goes — so the median is the wrong statistic and the tail is where pivoting earns its reputation.
The order the greedy rule cannot choose
Wilkinson's matrix is the standard demonstration that partial pivoting's growth bound of 2^(n−1) is attained. It is attained by the row order the greedy rule picks, and not by the matrix: a single cyclic shift of the rows gives growth 2 at every size, with no multiplier above one. At n = 7 that is 64 against 2. And perturbing one entry by 10⁻¹² leaves the good order exactly where it was while putting every tie-break of the greedy rule back on 64.
Noise the growth amplifies
The shooting matrix's growth of 1.1·10⁴ fell under noise as its pivot margin divided by the noise, and the explanation offered was noise reversing partial pivoting's choices. But noise of 10⁻⁵ is five hundred times smaller than that margin. Add the same noise only to the entries that are not zero and every draw keeps the whole growth up to 10⁻³. The dense noise was not reversing the comparisons by itself: it sat in the zeros, the elimination multiplied it by the growth already made, and a comparison flips when that product reaches about four tenths of the margin — at every noise level from 10⁻⁶ to 10⁻³.
A margin the factorisation records
Partial pivoting finds the second-largest candidate in every column it scans, and throws it away. Keep it, divide the gap by the growth reached at that step, and take the smallest over the steps before half the final growth has arrived. That one number, recorded by the factorisation that is already running, predicts the dense noise that halves the growth to within a factor of 0.92 to 2.4 on shooting matrices whose growth runs from 75 to 1.3·10⁵ and whose fragility spans three and a half decades — and on Wilkinson's matrix it is exactly zero.
A threshold that holds the growth still
Partial pivoting's large growth on the shooting matrix rests on a margin of 5.6·10⁻³, and Wilkinson's rests on exact ties, which a perturbation at rounding breaks. A sparse code pivots with a threshold instead, taking the sparsest row among candidates within a factor τ of the largest. At every threshold from 1 to 0.1 both matrices grow by exactly as much as under partial pivoting. But the growth is now held by row counts, which no perturbation of the values can reverse: at τ = 0.1 it survives noise on the stored entries up to 0.56 on the shooting matrix, three hundred times more, and 0.18 on Wilkinson's, where partial pivoting's goes at 10⁻¹⁶. The margin that predicts it is the chosen candidate's height above the threshold line, and it needs no division by the growth.
One step ahead is one step short
Partial pivoting takes the largest entry in the column and, on Wilkinson's matrix, walks into growth of 2^(n−1) that a cyclic shift of the rows avoids entirely. A rule that chose instead the pivot whose elimination leaves the smallest trailing submatrix was expected to see the good order at the first step. It sees nothing there: every first pivot leaves a largest entry of exactly 2, and with the ties broken by 10⁻¹² it prefers the greedy row by 10⁻¹². It attains 2^(n−1) at every size. Looking two eliminations ahead, the greedy row scores 4 and every other row 2, and the growth is 2 at every size up to 24. On random matrices one step of look-ahead helps below n = 16 and is worse than greedy on more than half of them by n = 32.
A trigger finer than the growth
Threshold pivoting cannot remove the shooting matrix's growth of 1.1·10⁴, because at τ = 1 it is partial pivoting. The proposal was a factorisation that notices growth on a step and searches as rook pivoting does after it, paying for the stricter search only where growth is made. But no step makes much: the largest one-step rise is exactly the growing mode's rate over one shooting interval, 1.284 at a step of 0.3, and 1.133 at 0.15. A trigger finer than that rate holds the growth at 2.00 for about two thirds of rook's extra search; one coarser never fires. And a trigger fine enough searches as rook on a quarter of an ordinary random matrix's steps.
Where the multipliers go
Bunch–Kaufman bounds the growth in D and not the entries of L, and the warning attached to that is that everything which later uses the factors inherits the size of L. On a matrix built to make those entries 1.2 over ε, they reach 1.2·10¹⁰ while the solve's backward error stays at 1.6·10⁻¹⁶, |L||D||Lᵀ| stays at 6.7 times ‖A‖, and a step of refinement changes nothing. The large multipliers are where the rule has put the matrix's ill-conditioning. A direction of negative curvature read from those factors finds 7·10⁻¹⁶ of the curvature that is there; the bounded rule's finds 13%.
A curvature direction the factors cannot refine
A direction of negative curvature read from Bunch–Kaufman's factors held 7·10⁻¹⁶ of the curvature that was there, and the bounded rule's held 14 per cent. The prediction was that a few steps of inverse iteration with the same factors would recover it from either. One step leaves both under a thousandth, and two put both on positive curvature, at the eigenvalue nearest zero — because a solve amplifies the smallest eigenvalue in magnitude, not the most negative. What recovers the curvature is the matrix, not its factors: Lanczos from either direction reaches ninety-nine per cent in six to nine products at every coupling, and power iteration from Bunch–Kaufman's direction has not reached a tenth after sixty.
Orthogonality, measured
Orthogonal is not an adjective, it is a number: ‖QᵀQ − I‖. Two algorithms that are the same algebra written in a different order return 10⁻¹⁵ and 1 for it on the same matrix — and the one that fails still reconstructs the matrix perfectly, which is why nothing warns you.
Orthogonal is a number
"Q is orthogonal" is a claim about a measurable quantity, ‖QᵀQ − I‖, and on the eight-by-eight Hilbert matrix two standard algorithms return 10⁻¹⁵ and 1 for it. The one that returns 1 still reconstructs the matrix perfectly, which is why nothing warns you.
Two Gram–Schmidts
One argument changes. Classical Gram–Schmidt projects the original column onto each previous direction; modified projects what is left of it. In exact arithmetic the coefficients are identical. In floating point they differ by eight orders of magnitude in the thing that matters.
A reflection cannot stop being one
Householder QR holds orthogonality at 10⁻¹⁵ whatever the condition number of the matrix, and Gram–Schmidt does not. The reason is not that it is more careful. It is that its Q is built from unit vectors, and rounding a unit vector gives a different reflection rather than a broken one.
The nearest orthogonal matrix
Every field that has to clean up a drifted rotation reaches for QR, and QR does not answer the question. The nearest orthogonal matrix is the orthogonal factor of the polar decomposition — nearer by about a tenth, and, more to the point, the same matrix whatever order the columns were written in. QR's answer changes completely.
An iteration that only multiplies
Newton's iteration for the polar factor needs an inverse every step. Newton–Schulz needs only matrix products — nothing that reads an entry, nothing that pivots — and it converges if and only if every singular value is below √3. At 1.73205 it converges and at 1.73206 it returns an orthogonal matrix that is not the answer, with a residual of 5·10⁻¹⁶ and nothing to say so.
The basis nobody chose on purpose
A method that eliminates a constraint has to pick a basis for its null space, and every basis is correct. Their condition numbers are eight orders apart, the reduced problem inherits the square, and the choice is usually made by a one-line rule nobody thought of as a numerical decision.
A test with no answer in it
A caller with no reference answer can still ask whether a routine answered the right question: reverse the columns, run it again, compare. The polar factor's two answers agree to 10⁻¹⁵ at every conditioning drawn; a QR's differ by 2.353 on matrices whose own norm is 2.449. The test has a floor, and the floor is measurable too.
A rotation that comes back mirrored
Align twenty noisy points and the nearest orthogonal matrix to the answer is a reflection in 7.7 per cent of trials at noise three times the set's thickness and a third of them at ten — at thicknesses of 10⁻², 10⁻³ and 10⁻⁴ alike. The determinant fix is never a small correction. It moves the answer by exactly 2, it costs exactly 4σ₃ of residual, and it leaves the rotation's error at half the noise however thin the set becomes.
A stable block is not a stable basis
Block Gram–Schmidt orthogonalises twice over — between blocks, and inside each one. Householder inside the blocks does not stop the classical between-block step losing orthogonality like κ², 4.2·10⁻³ at κ = 4.3·10⁷, and a second pass does not stop Cholesky QR inside the blocks breaking down at κ = 10⁸. Each level fails only on ill-conditioning placed at its own level, and one variant holds 3·10⁻¹⁵ on every placement.