Smoothed aggregation against the angle of the anisotropy (ε = 0.001)
At its defaults it draws smoothed aggregation against the angle of the anisotropy (ε = 0.001). Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.1935. At 45° it is 0.7894, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5005 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2497. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
rotation-failure is one function in lib/figures/aggregation.js —
smoothed aggregation — the sweep that is the method, and the angle that defeats it. 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.
Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.1935. At 45° it is 0.7894, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5005 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2497. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
eps: 0.001
The arguments are the ones Aggregating what the matrix calls strong passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.1935. At 45° it is 0.7894, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5005 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2497. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
eps: 0.002
The arguments are the ones How much direction there was to lose passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.1929. At 45° it is 0.7974, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5010 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2495. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
eps: 0.0001
The arguments are the ones How much direction there was to lose passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.1945. At 45° it is 0.8024, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5001 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2500. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
eps: 0.01
The arguments are the ones How much direction there was to lose passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.1927. At 45° it is 0.7774, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5050 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2475. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
eps: 0.05
The arguments are the ones How much direction there was to lose passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
Convergence factor against the rotation angle, with the stencil's largest axis coupling and its diagonal coupling on the same axis. Aligned, the factor is 0.2473. At 45° it is 0.6799, and the reason is beside it: the axis couplings are 0.5250 while the coupling along the direction the anisotropy runs in is 0.2375. The matrix does not contain the anisotropy.
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.
5 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 hierarchy has room to coarsen on
an anisotropy strong enough for the direction to matter
and fails at 45°
the method converges on the aligned operator
where the largest coupling is along an axis rather than along the anisotropy
Against the rule
It draws a decomposition and prints its residual. It calls
saSolve,
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.
Aggregating what the matrix calls strong
The depth phase measured every method it had on the 45°-rotated anisotropic operator — 0.784, 0.883, 0.844 — and diagnosed the failure as being in the discretisation rather than in the hierarchy. Smoothed aggregation is the standard answer to anisotropy. It returns 0.789.
Iterating, instead of factorisingHow much direction there was to lose
At 45° the nine-point stencil hands smoothed aggregation the same wrong hierarchy at every anisotropy — six strong neighbours per interior point, 121 aggregates, the identical partition from ε = 10⁻⁴ to 0.099. The convergence factor that one hierarchy produces runs from 0.802 to 0.581 over the same range.