Generator

fill-rank

One function in the hfill library, called 13 times across 8 essays. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 17 claims it put to the test while drawing them, and where it stands against the rule this site is named for.

At its defaults it draws columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separator. The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 5, 6 columns at 10⁻⁸: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

fill-rank is one function in lib/figures/hfill.js — the fill — dense, and not independent, on the separator nested dissection leaves. Everything below came out of it during this build, at arguments taken from the essays rather than invented for this page. A figure here is the figure a reader meets in an essay, and if the generator changes, this page changes with it.

At its defaults

Drawn even though every essay passes arguments — which on this site is every essay, at 100% of placements since the standard pass. A default nothing exercises is a trap for the next essay to call this with none, and this is the page where a default that has drifted from the figures around it becomes visible.

Columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separatorThe block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 5, 6 columns at 10⁻⁸: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.0481216202402468101214unknowns on the separatorcolumns above 10⁻⁸the same matrix, renumberedin the separator's own orderthe ordering the geometry hands overseparator 73separator 236renumbered, largest11the block, largest11share of the square stored0.52the fill is totaland it is not independent

The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 5, 6 columns at 10⁻⁸: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

logTol: -4

The arguments are the ones A rank that is a number of digits passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.

Columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separatorThe block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 3, 3, 4 columns at 10⁻⁴: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 10 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.0481216202402468101214unknowns on the separatorcolumns above 10⁻⁴the same matrix, renumberedin the separator's own orderthe ordering the geometry hands overseparator 73separator 234renumbered, largest10the block, largest11share of the square stored0.35the fill is totaland it is not independent

The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 3, 3, 4 columns at 10⁻⁴: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 10 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

logTol: -8

The arguments are the ones The factor is not sparse passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.

Columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separatorThe block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 5, 6 columns at 10⁻⁸: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.0481216202402468101214unknowns on the separatorcolumns above 10⁻⁸the same matrix, renumberedin the separator's own orderthe ordering the geometry hands overseparator 73separator 236renumbered, largest11the block, largest11share of the square stored0.52the fill is totaland it is not independent

The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 5, 6 columns at 10⁻⁸: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

logTol: -12

The arguments are the ones The fill that is not independent passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.

Columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separatorThe block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 5, 6, 7 columns at 10⁻¹²: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.0481216202402468101214unknowns on the separatorcolumns above 10⁻¹²the same matrix, renumberedin the separator's own orderthe ordering the geometry hands overseparator 73separator 237renumbered, largest11the block, largest11share of the square stored0.61the fill is totaland it is not independent

The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 5, 6, 7 columns at 10⁻¹²: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 11 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

logTol: -2

The arguments are the ones The fill that is not independent passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.

Columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separatorThe block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 2, 2, 2, 2 columns at 0.01: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 4, 6, 9 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.0481216202402468101214unknowns on the separatorcolumns above 0.01the same matrix, renumberedin the separator's own orderthe ordering the geometry hands overseparator 72separator 232renumbered, largest9the block, largest11share of the square stored0.17the fill is totaland it is not independent

The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 2, 2, 2, 2 columns at 0.01: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 4, 6, 9 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

logTol: -6

The arguments are the ones The fill that is not independent passes. A value drawn at the generator's defaults instead would be a picture no essay asked for and no assertion has been run against.

Columns needed by the block between a separator's two halves, against the length of the separatorThe block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 4, 5 columns at 10⁻⁶: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 10 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.0481216202402468101214unknowns on the separatorcolumns above 10⁻⁶the same matrix, renumberedin the separator's own orderthe ordering the geometry hands overseparator 73separator 235renumbered, largest10the block, largest11share of the square stored0.43the fill is totaland it is not independent

The block is 3×4, 5×6, 7×8, 11×12 across the sweep, so its size more than triples. In the separator's own numbering — the unknowns in the order they sit on the line — it needs 3, 4, 4, 5 columns at 10⁻⁶: about one more per doubling, which is a logarithm. Renumber the same Schur complement by one symmetric permutation and the same block needs 3, 5, 7, 10 — all of them at eight digits and tighter, and a multiple of the geometric count at every tolerance drawn. Nothing about the matrix changed. What changed is that a cluster of a shuffled numbering is scattered along the whole separator, so every block mixes near interactions with far ones and there is no smooth kernel left to compress. The ordering that works here is not chosen: it is the one the separator's geometry already has, which is why nested dissection leaves a compressible fill and a fill-reducing ordering chosen on the graph alone need not.

What it checked while drawing

Every figure above asserted its own claims on the way to being drawn, and a claim that failed would have failed the build rather than drawn a wrong picture. Those assertions used to leave no trace at all: a passing one returned true and the only evidence the figure had checked anything was that nothing crashed. The list below is what they actually said, collected by running this generator with an observer installed — not a description of what it is believed to check.

17 distinct claims across 6 sets of arguments, grouped below by shape — because most of them are one sentence with a different number in it, and how many separate times that sentence was put to the test is the informative part.

a grid the two dense half-factorisations are affordable at — the left half is a 21-square and its elimination is cubic in that — asserted 4 times

the same Schur complement, differently numbered, never needs fewer columns at a separator of 7 — asserted 4 times

an accuracy the block has singular values across

an odd grid, so the separator is a column and the two halves are equal

an operator this file defines

and at the longest separator the renumbered block is within two columns of the whole of it

and the rank moves by a handful of columns

LU is for square matrices

matmul shapes agree

the block more than triples across the sweep, so a rank that does not move is a measurement

while the separator's own numbering needs well under all of them

Against the rule

It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls rankAgainstSeparator, and every figure above carries the badge — which residualcheck verifies by looking for it in the emitted SVG rather than by finding the call that builds one. A badge that is constructed and then left out of the body is the failure that check exists for.

Across the library: the rule bites on 141 of 264 generators — 126 print a residual and 15 are exempt with a published reason; 123 factorise nothing. Read from lib/residual-rule.js, which is the same body the gate enforces from, and the gate's last check fails the build if this page and it disagree about any generator.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every figure on this list. That is what makes the list worth publishing rather than keeping in a check script.

Neither sparse nor dense

A rank that is a number of digits

Ask a kernel block for two digits and it costs two columns; ask for fourteen and it costs nine. The curve is a straight line at 0.55 columns a decade, and the bound the geometry gives is a straight line too — at 3.32, which is the same shape and six times the price.

Sparsity, and what elimination costs

The factor is not sparse

A sparse matrix has a factor that is not sparse, and the gap between them is the entire reason iterative methods exist. The entries elimination creates can be counted before any arithmetic runs, from the graph alone.

Sparsity, and what elimination costs

The fill that is not independent

Eliminate both halves of a grid and what is left on the separator is 100 per cent nonzero — the sparsity field's result, unchanged. Its off-diagonal block is 11 by 12 and six columns describe it to eight digits. Renumber the separator and the same block needs all eleven.

Neither sparse nor dense

The same matrix, numbered twice

One symmetric permutation. The condition number is 24.3948 either way to eight digits and the Frobenius norm is 6.13996414·10³ either way to twelve. The partition that stored 27,008 numbers now finds no admissible pair anywhere and stores all 65,536, and the format that compresses regardless stores 118,208.

Neither sparse nor dense

The size the rank does not notice

Sample a kernel block at 32, 64, 128 and 256 points a side and it needs five columns, five, five and five. Sample the touching block next to it at the same four sizes and it needs nine, eleven, twelve and thirteen. Same kernel, same accuracy, one number and a logarithm.

Sparsity, and what elimination costs

Two ends of the same arrow

One matrix, one row moved from the front of the elimination order to the back, and the factor goes from completely dense to no fill at all. Both factorisations are exact to rounding, and nothing numerical chose between them.

Sparsity, and what elimination costs

What the symbolic phase can only bound

Without pivoting, the fill can be computed from the graph and the count is exact — 233 predicted, 233 measured. With pivoting it is 233 predicted and 242 measured, and what survives is a bound that is right at every threshold and loose by 1.7 times at the largest grid drawn.

Neither sparse nor dense

Which pairs are allowed to be small

A hierarchical representation is a partition of the matrix into blocks, and the rule that produces it reads four numbers per pair of index clusters and not one entry of the matrix. On a 256-square it yields 112 blocks, 66 of them stored as two thin factors, none of rank above five.

The whole library · All essays · What must fail