Generator

pencil-routes

One function in the pencil library, called 6 times across 1 essay. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 19 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 relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of ax = λbx, against κ(b), n = 12. The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.08 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 6078. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.98 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 2.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

pencil-routes is one function in lib/figures/pencil.js — pencils — two matrices, an eigenvalue with no value, and a problem with no answer. 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.

Relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of Ax = λBx, against κ(B), n = 12The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.08 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 6078. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.98 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 2.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A0.92slope, via Cholesky0.98worst ratio between them2.3asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.1the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.08 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 6078. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.98 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 2.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

n: 12

The arguments are the ones Two matrices and one problem 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.

Relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of Ax = λBx, against κ(B), n = 12The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.08 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 6078. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.98 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 2.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A0.92slope, via Cholesky0.98worst ratio between them2.3asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.1the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.08 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 6078. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.98 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 2.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

n: 6

The arguments are the ones Two matrices and one problem 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.

Relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of Ax = λBx, against κ(B), n = 6The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.07 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 2.7·10⁶. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 1.04 and 1.01 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 4.9 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A1slope, via Cholesky1worst ratio between them4.9asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.1the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.07 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 2.7·10⁶. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 1.04 and 1.01 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 4.9 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

n: 20

The arguments are the ones Two matrices and one problem 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.

Relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of Ax = λBx, against κ(B), n = 20The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.29 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 643. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.96 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 19.9 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A0.92slope, via Cholesky0.96worst ratio between them20asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.3the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.29 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 643. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.92 and 0.96 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 19.9 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

n: 8

The arguments are the ones Two matrices and one problem 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.

Relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of Ax = λBx, against κ(B), n = 8The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.33 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 2.1·10⁶. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.89 and 0.90 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 5.0 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A0.89slope, via Cholesky0.9worst ratio between them5asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.3the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.33 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 2.1·10⁶. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.89 and 0.90 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 5.0 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

n: 16

The arguments are the ones Two matrices and one problem 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.

Relative eigenvalue error of two reductions of Ax = λBx, against κ(B), n = 16The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.29 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 1331. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.93 and 0.99 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 54.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A0.93slope, via Cholesky0.99worst ratio between them54asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.3the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

The pencil is built as B = LLᵀ and A = LΛLᵀ, so its generalised eigenvalues are exactly Λ and the error is a measurement rather than a comparison. Forming B⁻¹A gives a matrix whose departure from symmetry reaches 1.29 — about its own size — and reducing through the Cholesky factor gives one that is nearer symmetric by a factor of at least 1331. That difference is real and it does not appear in the accuracy: the two error curves have fitted slopes of 0.93 and 0.99 against κ(B) and stay within a factor of 54.3 of each other over fifteen decades. The conditioning belongs to the pencil, and no reduction of it escapes.

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.

19 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.

the constructed matrix has κ = 10 — asserted 8 times

a Cholesky factor of the second matrix, which requires it to be positive definite

a size the repeated eigendecompositions can afford

and so, to the same power, is the error of the symmetric one

and the ratio between them wanders rather than trending

and the reduced matrix is nearer symmetric by orders at every conditioning

and the two stay within two orders of each other at every conditioning

Jacobi needs a symmetric matrix

LU is for square matrices

matmul shapes agree

the error of the inverse route is proportional to κ(B)

while B⁻¹A departs from symmetry by about its own size

Against the rule

It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls conditioningSweep, 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 113 of 219 generators — 98 print a residual and 15 are exempt with a published reason; 106 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.

The whole library · All essays · What must fail