CG iterations on the model problem, with the two preconditioners a matrix-free code can and cannot have

At its defaults it draws cg iterations on the model problem, with the two preconditioners a matrix-free code can and cannot have. At 400 unknowns, conjugate gradients takes 64 iterations unpreconditioned. Diagonal preconditioning — n probes, or the analytic diagonal, and therefore available without any entries — takes 64, which is the same number, because this operator's diagonal is constant and scaling by it is scaling by a scalar. An incomplete Cholesky takes 24, a factor of 2.67, and it is defined by the sparsity pattern: there is no way to ask a subroutine for it. That factor is the price of an operator with no entries.

pattern-buys is one function in lib/figures/matfree.js — matrix-free — what survives when the matrix is a subroutine, and what it costs. 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 400 unknowns, conjugate gradients takes 64 iterations unpreconditioned. Diagonal preconditioning — n probes, or the analytic diagonal, and therefore available without any entries — takes 64, which is the same number, because this operator's diagonal is constant and scaling by it is scaling by a scalar. An incomplete Cholesky takes 24, a factor of 2.67, and it is defined by the sparsity pattern: there is no way to ask a subroutine for it. That factor is the price of an operator with no entries.

At 400 unknowns, conjugate gradients takes 64 iterations unpreconditioned. Diagonal preconditioning — n probes, or the analytic diagonal, and therefore available without any entries — takes 64, which is the same number, because this operator's diagonal is constant and scaling by it is scaling by a scalar. An incomplete Cholesky takes 24, a factor of 2.67, and it is defined by the sparsity pattern: there is no way to ask a subroutine for it. That factor is the price of an operator with no entries.

Every figure above checked its own claims on the way to being drawn, and a claim that failed would have stopped the picture rather than shipped a wrong one. Those checks 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.

12 distinct claims across 2 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.

The rule does not apply to it. It factorises nothing, so there is no residual it could be withholding. That is worth stating rather than leaving blank: a site that reported the rule as satisfied by every generator would be counting mostly generators the rule never reached.

Across the library: the rule bites on 217 of 397 generators — 199 print a residual and 18 are exempt with a published reason; 180 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.