Generator

hessenberg-reduction

One function in the qralg library, called 6 times across 5 essays. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 9 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 householder reduction to hessenberg form, on a symmetric 6×6. Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.

hessenberg-reduction is one function in lib/figures/qralg.js — the qr algorithm — hessenberg, the shift, and what the libraries actually run. 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.

Householder reduction to Hessenberg form, on a symmetric 6×6Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.-0.16-0.63-0.493.43-0.025-0.632.3-0.69-0.95-1.70.076-0.49-0.694.3-1.6-1.41.93.4-0.95-1.65.40.0141.63-1.7-1.40.0144.60.055-0.0250.0761.91.60.0553.1A, symmetric-0.164.600004.65.92.500002.51-1.20000-1.24.90.3800000.385.80.2400000.242H = QᵀAQ, tridiagonal‖A − QHQᵀ‖/‖A‖1.1·10⁻¹⁵below the subdiagonal0worst eigenvalue movement7.1·10⁻¹⁵a similarity, so the spectrum is untouched — and every later step is O(n²) rather than O(n³)one reduction, then every iteration is cheapthe eigenvalues did not move

Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.

n: 6

The arguments are the ones The algorithm the libraries actually run 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.

Householder reduction to Hessenberg form, on a symmetric 6×6Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.-0.16-0.63-0.493.43-0.025-0.632.3-0.69-0.95-1.70.076-0.49-0.694.3-1.6-1.41.93.4-0.95-1.65.40.0141.63-1.7-1.40.0144.60.055-0.0250.0761.91.60.0553.1A, symmetric-0.164.600004.65.92.500002.51-1.20000-1.24.90.3800000.385.80.2400000.242H = QᵀAQ, tridiagonal‖A − QHQᵀ‖/‖A‖1.1·10⁻¹⁵below the subdiagonal0worst eigenvalue movement7.1·10⁻¹⁵a similarity, so the spectrum is untouched — and every later step is O(n²) rather than O(n³)one reduction, then every iteration is cheapthe eigenvalues did not move

Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.

n: 7

The arguments are the ones The form a real matrix can reach 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.

Householder reduction to Hessenberg form, on a symmetric 7×7Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.2.7-1.10.0332.4-4.21.12.6-1.15.21.70.27-0.66-0.36-2.50.0331.7-0.16-1.9-1.4-1.1-0.682.40.27-1.93.31-1.2-2.6-4.2-0.66-1.41-4.1-1.8-0.0911.1-0.36-1.1-1.2-1.81.90.652.6-2.5-0.68-2.6-0.0910.653.6A, symmetric2.75.7000005.7-1.63.9000003.93.34.6000004.60.72-2.500000-2.51.61.9000001.93.71.5000001.52H = QᵀAQ, tridiagonal‖A − QHQᵀ‖/‖A‖10⁻¹⁵below the subdiagonal0worst eigenvalue movement1.4·10⁻¹⁴a similarity, so the spectrum is untouched — and every later step is O(n²) rather than O(n³)one reduction, then every iteration is cheapthe eigenvalues did not move

Two matrices side by side. The first is full; the second has zeros everywhere below the first subdiagonal, and being symmetric is tridiagonal.

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.

9 distinct claims across 3 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.

two 6×6 grids leave enough width for a two-figure entry — asserted 2 times

and a symmetric matrix came out tridiagonal

and every eigenvalue survived the reduction

and QHQᵀ is the matrix it reduced

Jacobi needs a symmetric matrix

matmul shapes agree

the matrix is large enough for a subdiagonal to be a structure

the reduction produced Hessenberg form

Against the rule

It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls jacobiEigSym, hessenberg, 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 52 of 99 generators — 37 print a residual and 15 are exempt with a published reason; 47 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.

Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The algorithm the libraries actually run

Factorise, multiply the factors back in the other order, repeat. That description is complete and correct and produces something nobody would use — on a matrix with eigenvalues +1 and −1 it does not converge at all, and the subdiagonal entry does not move by so much as a rounding error.

Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The form a real matrix can reach

A real matrix with complex eigenvalues has no real triangular form, and the reason is one line — a real triangular matrix has a real diagonal, and a similarity does not move the spectrum. What it has instead is triangular except for one two-by-two block per conjugate pair, and the count is decided by the matrix rather than by where the iteration stopped.

Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

The form that makes it affordable

One Householder reduction, done once, turns every subsequent iteration of the eigenvalue algorithm from cubic to quadratic cost. It changes no answer at all, which is why it is easy to describe as an optimisation and wrong to.

Iterating, instead of factorising

The spectrum that predicts nothing

For a symmetric matrix the eigenvalues govern how fast an iteration converges. Drop symmetry and they stop governing anything — there is a matrix whose eigenvalues are as evenly spread as eigenvalues can be, on which GMRES makes no progress at all until the last possible step.

Eigenvalues, singular values, rank

Two shifts that are never formed

The double shift is defined as a factorisation of (A − μI)(A − μ̄I), which nobody computes. What is computed is the first column of that product — three numbers — and the bulge those three numbers create, pushed down the subdiagonal by n − 2 reflectors until it falls off the bottom.

The whole library · All essays · What must fail