Two subdivision rules on roots 0.01 apart, one of which sits on the first cut
At its defaults it draws two subdivision rules on roots 0.01 apart, one of which sits on the first cut. Six bars. Cutting a box at its midpoint puts the root at x = 1 on a boundary of every box the search ever asks about, and the operator cannot verify a root it never sees the interior of: 0 verified after 211 evaluations. Cutting at 0.485 of the width verifies both roots in 87.
split-rule is one function in lib/figures/branchbound.js —
from a verdict to a search — where the box is cut, and what that 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 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.
Six bars. Cutting a box at its midpoint puts the root at x = 1 on a boundary of every box the search ever asks about, and the operator cannot verify a root it never sees the interior of: 0 verified after 211 evaluations. Cutting at 0.485 of the width verifies both roots in 87.
delta: 0.01
The arguments are the ones Where the box is cut passes. A value nobody placed would be a picture no essay asked for and no claim was ever checked against.
Six bars. Cutting a box at its midpoint puts the root at x = 1 on a boundary of every box the search ever asks about, and the operator cannot verify a root it never sees the interior of: 0 verified after 211 evaluations. Cutting at 0.485 of the width verifies both roots in 87.
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 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.
a gap the search can be asked to resolve
and the off-centre rule verifies both roots
in fewer evaluations
LU is for square matrices
the midpoint rule verifies nothing
Against the rule
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.
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.