Recently added

What's new

Essays arrive in groups rather than one at a time. The most recent group is below in full, and every earlier one after it, newest first.

Essays arrive in groups rather than one at a time, and a group usually opens up a subject not covered before. Between one group and the next nothing changes, so a reader who has seen the most recent group has seen everything.

27 September 2026

13 essays on randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, the matrix that is a graph, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, two errors, and whose fault they are, sparsity, and what elimination costs, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, least squares, and the road not to take, orthogonality, measured, exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead, neither sparse nor dense, the arithmetic underneath, structure, and the solver that cannot see it and elimination, and the swap

fraction left after a decademedian, t = 10⁻³ → 10⁻²0.57median, t = 10⁻² → 10⁻¹0.6210⁻⁷10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1110¹mixing angle terror ÷ σ₁₁median of 80single drawseach draw drops once, somewherethe median's slope is where they drop Randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind

A fade made of drops

A one-nonzero sketch's median error fell by about forty per cent for every factor of ten in how far a coherent matrix had been mixed toward an incoherent one, and nothing explained the rate. Followed one draw at a time, no draw fades at that rate. Each holds its coherent error — as large as the singular value of the direction its hash lost — and then drops, within one to three decades of mixing, never faster than one decade of error per decade of mixing. The median's steady slope is where the drops happen to fall. Change the spectrum and they fall elsewhere: at a decay of 0.9 there is no slope, only a cliff.

6 figures
separated by the groupboth groups cyclic: cannot bethe same non-cyclic group6 vertices, 2 pairs117 vertices, 65 pairs3023128 vertices, 1022 pairs435361226a cyclic group is fixed by its order, and the order is the tree countthe group heard less than half the time The matrix that is a graph

A finer invariant that hears less

The Laplacian spectrum fixes a graph's number of spanning trees and not the group those trees form, so the Smith normal form of the grounded Laplacian is a strictly finer integer invariant — and on the six-vertex pair the spectrum cannot separate, it does: ℤ₁₂ against ℤ₂ ⊕ ℤ₆. Over all 1,022 Laplacian-cospectral pairs of connected graphs on eight vertices it separates 435. The adjacency polynomial, a second spectrum rather than a finer one, separates all of them.

6 figures
1×1.1×1.5×2×3×stepoffsetsmoothoscillatingspikeswrong penalty ÷ right oneone penalty ÷ best pairbest pair ÷ best triplewrong penalty ÷ right oneone penalty ÷ best pairbest pair ÷ best triplewrong penalty ÷ right oneone penalty ÷ best pairbest pair ÷ best triplewrong penalty ÷ right oneone penalty ÷ best pairbest pair ÷ best triplewrong penalty ÷ right oneone penalty ÷ best pairbest pair ÷ best tripleeach tick one drawthe choice is worth a factor, the third penalty nothing Regularisation, and the answer that is chosen

A third penalty on a flat floor

Two penalties at once were worth three per cent at most, and the explanation offered was that one penalty already does the work — which predicts that a third buys less still and that the best choice sits on a face of the parameter cube. The third buys a median of exactly nothing on all five signals and 0.66% on its best draw. But on twelve draws of forty the best triple does use all three, and on every one of them the nearest point with a penalty switched off is within that same 0.66%. The minimum is not on a face; it is on a floor so flat that where it lands is noise. Choosing the right single penalty is worth a factor of two.

6 figures
largest eigenvalue erroras given, order 960.043balanced, order 964.4·10⁻⁴symmetrised, order 962.2·10⁻¹²016324864809611210⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹order nlargest |computed − exact| eigenvaluean error of one: the integers are no longer told apartas givenbalancedsymmetrisedopen dots: complex pairs returned for a real spectrumevery entry is an integer, stored exactly Two errors, and whose fault they are

Balanced is not symmetric

The Sylvester–Kac matrix is made of small integers, so a double holds it exactly, and its eigenvalues are the integers from −(n − 1) to n − 1 in steps of two. Every digit an eigensolver loses on it is therefore the solver's own, and it loses them at exactly the rate first-order perturbation theory predicts: the median error is half the prediction across 1,568 eigenvalues. Balancing, the preprocessing libraries apply for this kind of matrix, divides every condition number by about sixty and leaves their growth untouched, and at order 112 the unbalanced solver returns eighteen complex eigenvalues for a spectrum of integers.

6 figures
critical pathdepth one, pieces alone5.4·10⁴depth one, separator counted4.1·10⁴minimum degree, whole grid4.1·10⁴01000020000300004000050000dissection depthcritical path, Σ c² along the heaviest chain12348minimum degreepieces ordered aloneseparator countedgrey line: full dissectionthe penalty was the blindness Sparsity, and what elimination costs

Pieces ordered blind

One level of nested dissection followed by minimum degree lengthened the factorisation's critical path, and the blame moved from the separator to the halves: minimum degree's path through a 12 × 24 half was longer than through the whole 24 × 24 grid. A 12 × 24 grid on its own has a path of 12,913, a third of the square's. What made the half expensive is that it was ordered as if the separator were not there. Count the separator's vertices in every degree and number them last, and the depth-one path falls from 53,508 to 41,050 — minimum degree's own — while the pieces' own arithmetic does not change at all. At depth two the same ordering beats full dissection.

5 figures
123456700.10.20.30.4circle radius Rdigits per quadrature point27 points41 points78 pointseight eigenvalues, 4.19 to 4.56line: the annulus · dots: measured · large: ten digits at the geometric meanon a shared ray the balance is a cancellation Where the flop count stopped predicting the time

The circle between two eigenvalues

A contour count's error is not approximately governed by the nearest eigenvalue; it is exactly one closed-form term per eigenvalue, and summing those terms reproduces the quadrature to a millionth at 1,720 radius and point pairs. Three things follow. The rate is the ratio of the two moduli the circle sits between, not a distance, so two circles 0.2 from their nearest eigenvalue converge three times apart. Ten digits cost about 21 points divided by log₁₀ of that ratio, 71 points with twelve eigenvalues inside and 3,476 with six. And the best circle is not halfway: at the geometric mean of two eigenvalues on one ray their two terms are equal and opposite, and ten digits cost 27 points where the midpoint needs 84.

6 figures
how lopsided the valley isσ = 0.1: 6 too few ÷ 40 too many17σ = 10⁻³: 6 too few ÷ 40 too many231σ = 10⁻⁶: 6 too few ÷ 40 too many8184-50510152025303540110¹10²10³10⁴degree minus the best degreeerror ÷ best degree's errorσ = 0.1σ = 10⁻³σ = 10⁻⁶left of the line: too few degrees; right: too manya missing degree costs orders, an extra one a few per cent Least squares, and the road not to take

The degree that is safe to overshoot

The rules that choose a Tikhonov parameter miss by factors of millions on one draw in twenty. Transplanted to the degree of a polynomial fit, in a basis orthonormal on the data, the same rules never cost more than 2.7 times the best degree's error in three hundred draws. The reason is the shape of the valley they search: six degrees too few costs from 44 to 16,000 times the best error, forty degrees too many costs about twice it. The one rule with a tail, the discrepancy principle, has its threshold half a standard deviation above the residual it is waiting for.

6 figures
median departureone reflector at a time, formed7.5·10⁻¹⁵one reflector at a time, applied3.4·10⁻¹⁵blocks of 64, applied3.7·10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁴block sizedeparture from orthogonality12481632642·10⁻¹⁵4·10⁻¹⁵6·10⁻¹⁵8·10⁻¹⁵Q formedapplied through the blocksopen dots: each of the five seedsblocking helps the formed matrix and not the operator Orthogonality, measured

The factor nobody forms

A blocked Householder factorisation's orthogonal factor, multiplied out, departs from orthogonality half as far in blocks of sixteen as one reflector at a time, and that was read as blocking buying a factor of two. Libraries do not multiply it out. Applied to vectors through its stored blocks — which is how every caller uses it — the same factor departs by 3.1 to 4.0·10⁻¹⁵ at every block size from one to sixty-four, and stops growing after about twenty reflectors instead of adding them up. The factor of two was the price of forming the product, and a factor that is never formed never pays it.

5 figures
invertible sharerationals, n = 201𝔽₂, n = 200.29𝔽₃, n = 200.56𝔽₅, n = 200.74𝔽₇, n = 200.83246810121416182000.20.40.60.81size nshare invertibleover rationalsover 𝔽₂over 𝔽₃over 𝔽₅over 𝔽₇dashed: a matrix uniform over the fieldthe fields part company as n grows Exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead

The field decides it, usually

A matrix whose rank depends on the field it is read over was built, the first time, from its invariant factors outward, because random integer matrices never seemed to show the effect. Random 0/1 matrices show it at almost every size that is not tiny. At twenty rows, 99.8% of them are invertible over the rationals, 29% modulo two, 56% modulo three — and 71% of the ones the rationals call invertible are singular modulo two. Modulo two they obey, corank by corank, the law for uniformly random matrices over that field; modulo three and five, which their entries cannot fill, they converge to that field's law anyway.

6 figures
source segment length btarget length a⅛¼½124⅛¼½1247889888991011108912131313910131618188111318222681013182633columns at 10⁻⁸square block, side 433⅛ against 48square block, side ⅛7κ = 40, separation ratio ½ throughoutthe smaller side sets the rank Neither sparse nor dense

The smaller cluster sets the rank

An oscillatory kernel block between two equal clusters needs a rank that grows without limit as they grow. Make the clusters unequal at the same separation ratio and the rank stops following the larger one: a target an eighth long against a source of four needs 8 columns where the square block of side four needs 33, and a target a third long against a source 130 wavelengths long needs 11. What decides the rank is the product of the two lengths over their distance — the Fresnel number, the count optics gives for the waves two apertures can exchange.

5 figures
deepest barrier, far well right to within halfno exponent limit40gradual, started at 102433fp16, gradual underflow23fp16, flush to zero13051015202530354010⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹barrier depth, octaves below the near wellrelative error in the far well's masssmallest normalsmallest subnormalno exponent limitgradual, started at 1024fp16, gradual underflowfp16, flush to zeroan error of one: the far well is emptysubnormals bought nine octaves The arithmetic underneath

The well on the far side of the band

Gradual underflow was said to buy a predicate and not an answer, because a quantity that has decayed into the subnormal range is already lost. A quantity that passes through the band on its way somewhere else is not. The stationary distribution of a two-well chain, computed in half precision across a barrier whose top is two to the minus sixteen of the near well, keeps its far well's probability of 0.2454 to three digits with subnormals and returns exactly zero without them. The normwise backward error calls both answers exact.

6 figures
size n163264128(L + s)²1 stepκu 1.2·10⁻¹²1 stepκu 1.9·10⁻¹¹1 stepκu 3.1·10⁻¹⁰1 stepκu 4.9·10⁻⁹(L + s)³1 stepκu 1.2·10⁻¹⁰1 stepκu 7.9·10⁻⁹1 stepκu 5.1·10⁻⁷1 stepκu 3.2·10⁻⁵(L + s)⁴1 stepκu 1.3·10⁻⁸1 stepκu 3.3·10⁻⁶2 stepsκu 8.4·10⁻⁴no first solveκu 2.2·10⁻¹(L + s)⁵3 stepsκu 1.3·10⁻⁶3 stepsκu 1.4·10⁻³no first solveκu 1.4·10⁰no first solveκu 1.4·10³(L + s)⁶3 stepsκu 1.3·10⁻⁴no first solveκu 5.6·10⁻¹no first solveκu 2.3·10³no first solveκu 9.5·10⁶κu: the wrap's condition number times the unit roundoffsteps are not a function of κu Structure, and the solver that cannot see it

Where one step stops being enough

One step of iterative refinement took the squared Laplacian's circulant-wrap solve to elimination's accuracy at every size, and the account was that each step multiplies the error by the wrap's condition number times the rounding, so one step suffices while that product is small. Raised to higher powers, the band tests the account and half of it holds: each step does contract by about κ(wrap)·u. The other half fails. The fifth power at sixteen points needs three steps with κ(wrap)·u near 10⁻⁶, where the third power at 128 points needs one with thirty times more, because the first solve starts up to a thousand times further from the answer than κ(wrap)·u says.

5 figures
at ε = 10⁻¹⁰Bunch–Kaufman, |L||D||Lᵀ| ÷ A6.7rook (bounded), |L||D||Lᵀ| ÷ A9.310⁻¹⁰10⁻⁹10⁻⁸10⁻⁷10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰coupling εsizeBunch–Kaufman: multiplierBunch–Kaufman: productrook (bounded): multiplierrook (bounded): productdashed: ‖|L||D||Lᵀ|‖ ÷ ‖A‖the multipliers grow and the product does not Elimination, and the swap

Where the multipliers go

Bunch–Kaufman bounds the growth in D and not the entries of L, and the warning attached to that is that everything which later uses the factors inherits the size of L. On a matrix built to make those entries 1.2 over ε, they reach 1.2·10¹⁰ while the solve's backward error stays at 1.6·10⁻¹⁶, |L||D||Lᵀ| stays at 6.7 times ‖A‖, and a step of refinement changes nothing. The large multipliers are where the rule has put the matrix's ill-conditioning. A direction of negative curvature read from those factors finds 7·10⁻¹⁶ of the curvature that is there; the bounded rule's finds 13%.

6 figures

Before that

Everything published earlier, newest first. Titles only — the cards are on the full listing.

26 September 2026

13 essays on reduction, and what a model is for, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, methods that were designed apart, elimination, and the swap, the matrix a constraint makes, sparsity, and what elimination costs, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead, when the index is a tuple, orthogonality, measured, structure, and the solver that cannot see it and when the problem arrives again

25 September 2026

18 essays on when the problem arrives again, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, when the index is a tuple, orthogonality, measured, elimination, and the swap, structure, and the solver that cannot see it, sparsity, and what elimination costs, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, methods that were designed apart, exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead, least squares, and the road not to take, the matrix a constraint makes, reduction, and what a model is for, neither sparse nor dense and two errors, and whose fault they are

24 September 2026

19 essays on methods that were designed apart, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, structure, and the solver that cannot see it, when the index is a tuple, exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead, the matrix a constraint makes, elimination, and the swap, when the problem arrives again, reduction, and what a model is for, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, least squares, and the road not to take and orthogonality, measured

21 September 2026

6 essays on neither sparse nor dense, sparsity, and what elimination costs and least squares, and the road not to take

18 September 2026

18 essays on structure, and the solver that cannot see it, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, when the problem arrives again, orthogonality, measured, reduction, and what a model is for, elimination, and the swap, sparsity, and what elimination costs, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind and the matrix a constraint makes

16 September 2026

20 essays on when the problem arrives again, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, orthogonality, measured, methods that were designed apart, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, sparsity, and what elimination costs, the matrix a constraint makes, elimination, and the swap, exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead and neither sparse nor dense

14 September 2026

14 essays on exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead, when the problem arrives again, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, least squares, and the road not to take and when the index is a tuple

13 September 2026

15 essays on regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, the matrix a constraint makes, methods that were designed apart, elimination, and the swap, sparsity, and what elimination costs, least squares, and the road not to take, orthogonality, measured and where the flop count stopped predicting the time

11 September 2026

20 essays on regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, the matrix a constraint makes, methods that were designed apart, orthogonality, measured, least squares, and the road not to take, elimination, and the swap, where the flop count stopped predicting the time and when the problem arrives again

7 September 2026

50 essays on orthogonality, measured, methods that were designed apart, least squares, and the road not to take, elimination, and the swap, when the problem arrives again, when the index is a tuple, neither sparse nor dense, structure, and the solver that cannot see it, sparsity, and what elimination costs, reduction, and what a model is for, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, the arithmetic underneath, the eigenvalue problem that is not linear, two errors, and whose fault they are, the answer that depends on the machine, eigenvalues, singular values, rank and iterating, instead of factorising

1 September 2026

12 essays on exact arithmetic, and what it costs instead and the matrix that is a graph

31 August 2026

20 essays on the matrix that is a graph, reduction, and what a model is for and the eigenvalue problem that is not linear

30 August 2026

20 essays on the answer that depends on the machine, reduction, and what a model is for and two errors, and whose fault they are

29 August 2026

15 essays on reduction, and what a model is for, the eigenvalue problem that is not linear and two errors, and whose fault they are

28 August 2026

13 essays on the eigenvalue problem that is not linear, structure, and the solver that cannot see it, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, two errors, and whose fault they are, the arithmetic underneath and iterating, instead of factorising

27 August 2026

13 essays on the matrix a constraint makes, orthogonality, measured, least squares, and the road not to take, when the problem arrives again, sparsity, and what elimination costs, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, two errors, and whose fault they are and eigenvalues, singular values, rank

25 August 2026

13 essays on when the index is a tuple, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, two errors, and whose fault they are and iterating, instead of factorising

23 August 2026

13 essays on neither sparse nor dense, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, sparsity, and what elimination costs and two errors, and whose fault they are

22 August 2026

12 essays on when the problem arrives again, randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, sparsity, and what elimination costs, the arithmetic underneath and iterating, instead of factorising

21 August 2026

12 essays on structure, and the solver that cannot see it, two errors, and whose fault they are, eigenvalues, singular values, rank and iterating, instead of factorising

20 August 2026

12 essays on orthogonality, measured, least squares, and the road not to take, structure, and the solver that cannot see it, elimination, and the swap, two errors, and whose fault they are, eigenvalues, singular values, rank and iterating, instead of factorising

19 August 2026

12 essays on randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, elimination, and the swap, least squares, and the road not to take, two errors, and whose fault they are and eigenvalues, singular values, rank

17 August 2026

12 essays on regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, methods that were designed apart, eigenvalues, singular values, rank, iterating, instead of factorising and the arithmetic underneath

15 August 2026

12 essays on methods that were designed apart, structure, and the solver that cannot see it, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, eigenvalues, singular values, rank, the arithmetic underneath and iterating, instead of factorising

14 August 2026

12 essays on structure, and the solver that cannot see it, where the flop count stopped predicting the time, regularisation, and the answer that is chosen, the arithmetic underneath, iterating, instead of factorising and eigenvalues, singular values, rank

12 August 2026

12 essays on the arithmetic underneath, iterating, instead of factorising and eigenvalues, singular values, rank

10 August 2026

12 essays on sparsity, and what elimination costs, iterating, instead of factorising, eigenvalues, singular values, rank and the arithmetic underneath

6–8 August 2026

34 essays on randomised, and the guarantee that changes kind, elimination, and the swap, orthogonality, measured, eigenvalues, singular values, rank, two errors, and whose fault they are, sparsity, and what elimination costs, least squares, and the road not to take, iterating, instead of factorising and the arithmetic underneath

Every essay, by subject · by subject · by thread · search