Generator

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written against

One function in the qepbe library, called 7 times across 2 essays. Below: what it draws at its defaults, what it draws at every value an essay asks for, the 13 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 the condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written against. The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 8 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.98 at γ = 1 and 4.98 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 49.66 to 7.844·10¹¹, a factor of 1.58·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

qep-conditioning is one function in lib/figures/qepbe.js — the price of linearising — a residual that stays flat while the answer loses eleven orders. 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.

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written againstThe same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 8 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.98 at γ = 1 and 4.98 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 49.66 to 7.844·10¹¹, a factor of 1.58·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.012345610⁻¹10²10⁵10⁸10¹¹log₁₀ γ, the change of unitscondition numberthe linearisationthe quadraticone problem, two amplifiersκ(quadratic), first5κ(quadratic), last5κ(linearisation), last7.8·10¹¹how far the first moved1the problem is as well conditioned as everand the method is not

The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 8 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.98 at γ = 1 and 4.98 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 49.66 to 7.844·10¹¹, a factor of 1.58·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

n: 8

The arguments are the ones A backward-stable answer to a problem nobody asked passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written againstThe same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 8 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.98 at γ = 1 and 4.98 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 49.66 to 7.844·10¹¹, a factor of 1.58·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.012345610⁻¹10²10⁵10⁸10¹¹log₁₀ γ, the change of unitscondition numberthe linearisationthe quadraticone problem, two amplifiersκ(quadratic), first5κ(quadratic), last5κ(linearisation), last7.8·10¹¹how far the first moved1the problem is as well conditioned as everand the method is not

The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 8 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.98 at γ = 1 and 4.98 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 49.66 to 7.844·10¹¹, a factor of 1.58·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

n: 14

The arguments are the ones The number that moves when the problem does passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written againstThe same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 14 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 6.557 at γ = 1 and 6.557 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 65.03 to 1.018·10¹², a factor of 1.57·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.012345610⁻¹10²10⁵10⁸10¹¹log₁₀ γ, the change of unitscondition numberthe linearisationthe quadraticone problem, two amplifiersκ(quadratic), first6.6κ(quadratic), last6.6κ(linearisation), last10¹²how far the first moved1the problem is as well conditioned as everand the method is not

The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 14 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 6.557 at γ = 1 and 6.557 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 65.03 to 1.018·10¹², a factor of 1.57·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

n: 4

The arguments are the ones The number that moves when the problem does passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written againstThe same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 4 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 3.596 at γ = 1 and 3.596 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 36.5 to 5.929·10¹¹, a factor of 1.62·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.012345610⁻¹10²10⁵10⁸10¹¹log₁₀ γ, the change of unitscondition numberthe linearisationthe quadraticone problem, two amplifiersκ(quadratic), first3.6κ(quadratic), last3.6κ(linearisation), last5.9·10¹¹how far the first moved1the problem is as well conditioned as everand the method is not

The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 4 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 3.596 at γ = 1 and 3.596 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 36.5 to 5.929·10¹¹, a factor of 1.62·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

n: 6

The arguments are the ones The number that moves when the problem does passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written againstThe same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 6 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.338 at γ = 1 and 4.338 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 43.48 to 6.925·10¹¹, a factor of 1.59·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.012345610⁻¹10²10⁵10⁸10¹¹log₁₀ γ, the change of unitscondition numberthe linearisationthe quadraticone problem, two amplifiersκ(quadratic), first4.3κ(quadratic), last4.3κ(linearisation), last6.9·10¹¹how far the first moved1the problem is as well conditioned as everand the method is not

The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 6 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 4.338 at γ = 1 and 4.338 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 43.48 to 6.925·10¹¹, a factor of 1.59·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

n: 10

The arguments are the ones The number that moves when the problem does passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.

The condition number the problem has, and the one the solver's error analysis is written againstThe same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 10 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 5.554 at γ = 1 and 5.554 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 55.22 to 8.685·10¹¹, a factor of 1.57·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.012345610⁻¹10²10⁵10⁸10¹¹log₁₀ γ, the change of unitscondition numberthe linearisationthe quadraticone problem, two amplifiersκ(quadratic), first5.6κ(quadratic), last5.6κ(linearisation), last8.7·10¹¹how far the first moved1the problem is as well conditioned as everand the method is not

The same eigenvalue of the same overdamped chain of 10 masses, in seven systems of units. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the QUADRATIC — Tisseur's, with the three coefficient norms in the numerator and yᵀQ′(λ)x in the denominator — is 5.554 at γ = 1 and 5.554 at γ = 10⁶, a spread of 1 over six decades: it cannot move, because a change of units is not a change of problem. Its condition number as an eigenvalue of the LINEARISED MATRIX runs 55.22 to 8.685·10¹¹, a factor of 1.57·10¹⁰. The forward error follows the second one, and the first one is the honest description of the problem — so the substitution has manufactured an ill conditioning that belongs to the algorithm rather than to the question.

What it checked while drawing

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.

13 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 chain long enough to have a spectrum and short enough to draw

a linearisation has as many eigenvalues as it has rows

a positive change of units

a positive mass

a reduction this file knows

a size the left and right null vectors can be computed at

an inverse iterate that is a vector

an overdamped chain, whose spectrum is entirely real

and the linearisation's does

damping that removes energy rather than adding it

LU is for square matrices

matmul shapes agree

the quadratic's condition number does not move

Against the rule

It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls qepEigen, 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 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.

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