Conditioning — the series
-
The condition number is an amplifier
κ is usually introduced as a definition and then quoted. It is a measurement: perturb the input by a known amount, look at how much the output moves, and the largest ratio you can find is the number.
-
A tensor that cannot be decomposed
Every member of a certain sequence is exactly a sum of two rank-one terms, and both terms are written down in closed form. A three-hundred-sweep fit from a random start does not find them, and stalls at the same one per cent however far the sequence goes — while a fit started at the answer loses digits exactly as 2n² says it should.
-
The roots are not the coefficients
A polynomial whose roots are the integers one to twenty, expanded exactly, handed to the routine every library uses. The computed roots are wrong in the third digit, the computation is backward stable for the matrix it factorised, and above degree eighteen the coefficients are not double-precision numbers at all.
-
A basis that has to know where the roots are
Wilkinson's polynomial loses its roots in the third figure at degree twenty when they are computed from its monomial coefficients, and the repair offered was to change the basis: in Chebyshev coefficients, with the colleague matrix, the conditioning 'does not degrade exponentially with degree'. Expanded exactly in that basis and rounded once, the integers' roots come back ten orders better at degree twenty — 4.4·10⁻¹³ against 7.6·10⁻³ — and still degrade exponentially, at a third of a decade a degree, to 2.8·10⁻⁴ at forty. Place the same number of roots at the interval's Chebyshev points instead and they stay at 10⁻¹⁴ at every degree, while the monomial route loses them as fast as the integers. The basis does not repair the problem; it has to match where the roots are.
-
The second factor was the last row
Wilkinson's polynomial in Chebyshev coefficients loses its roots exponentially from the colleague matrix, and two factors accounted for the loss: the roots' own conditioning, and the size of the matrix's last row against the rest of it. A diagonal similarity by powers of two — balancing, which changes no eigenvalue and rounds nothing — removes the second factor entirely: the balanced error sits within a factor of two and a half of the conditioning at every degree from fourteen to forty, three and a half thousand times better than unbalanced at forty. What is left is the conditioning, still exponential. Balancing the monomial companion matrix takes its norm down by forty-five orders and gains nothing, because there the error was never the matrix's.