Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 14 results · all verified · 0 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 14 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Matrix Norms, Condition Numbers and Numerical Stability

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The published p-norms on Rn and their norm axioms, the operator norm and the singular value decomposition with the rank and Eckart–Young consequences, matrix multiplication and invertibility, the geometric series, and the least-squares normal equation supply the machinery this page uses; the published spectral page owns singular values and the operator 2-norm, and this page cites them rather than re-minting them.

The page separates the three questions that numerical analysis keeps apart. First it fixes the vocabulary of problem conditioning: absolute and relative forward error, and the absolute and relative local condition numbers of a problem map. Second it builds the matrix-norm tools: the norm induced by a published vector p-norm with its compatibility, submultiplicativity and normalisation; the induced 1-norm as the maximum column sum and the induced ∞-norm as the maximum row sum; and the Frobenius norm with the spectral and Frobenius singular-value formulas, unitary invariance and the sharp rank comparison. Third it runs the linear-system spine: the condition number κp(A), the right-hand-side and matrix perturbation bounds, the reciprocal spectral condition number as the relative distance to singularity, residual-to-forward-error bounds, and normwise and componentwise backward error with their explicit residual formulas.

The page then makes the arithmetic model explicit: the standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff with its stated exclusions, forward and backward stability for a problem family, the product-of-errors lemma giving γn=nu/(1−nu), the componentwise and normwise dot-product bounds, and the first-order principle that conditioning times backward error controls forward error. It closes by separating exact rank from numerical rank: exact rank is locally constant at maximal-rank matrices and discontinuous at nonmaximal-rank ones, numerical rank is declared against a norm, scale and tolerance, and in the spectral norm it counts the singular values above the declared threshold.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Absolute and relative forward error for an approximate value of a problem map

Definition

Let X and Y be normed spaces over R (A norm on a real vector space, the induced metric, and the dictionary with the metric axioms), let f:X→Y be a map, and let x be an element of the domain of f. Let y^∈Y be an approximate value of f at x: an element of the target space meant to stand for f(x).

The absolute forward error of y^ at x is the norm

∥y^−f(x)∥,

and, provided f(x)≠0, the relative forward error of y^ at x is

∥y^−f(x)∥∥f(x)∥.

The exact value f(x) is called the exact answer, and y^ the computed (or approximate) answer. Forward error is the error in the answer itself; it is measured in the target space Y and knows nothing about how y^ was produced.

Remarks

  • Why the relative version needs f(x)≠0. Relative error divides by ∥f(x)∥; when f(x)=0 the division is not defined, and the only sensible quantity is the absolute error. Every statement on this page that writes a relative forward error carries the hypothesis f(x)≠0.

  • Approximate values are plain elements of Y. No machine arithmetic is assumed here: y^ can come from hand calculation, a rounded formula, or an algorithm. The floating-point model is introduced separately in The standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff, and nothing in this definition depends on it.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Absolute and relative local condition numbers of a problem map

Definition

Let X and Y be normed spaces over R (A norm on a real vector space, the induced metric, and the dictionary with the metric axioms) and let f:X→Y be a map. For x∈X and δ>0 write

Pf,x(δ)  :=  { h∈X:0<∥h∥<δ, x+h∈dom⁡f }.

Define the worst amplification over perturbations of size at most δ by

Sf,x(δ)  :=  {0,Pf,x(δ)=∅,sup⁡{ ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥∥h∥:h∈Pf,x(δ) },Pf,x(δ)≠∅.

so Sf,x(δ)∈[0,+∞] in every case.

For each fixed x the map δ↦Sf,x(δ) is nondecreasing as δ increases, so the infimum over all δ>0 exists in [0,+∞]. The absolute (local) condition number of f at x is

κabs(f,x)  :=  inf⁡δ>0Sf,x(δ)  =  lim⁡δ→0+Sf,x(δ)  ∈  [0,+∞].

If x≠0 and f(x)≠0, the relative (local) condition number of f at x is

κrel(f,x)  :=  κabs(f,x)⋅∥x∥∥f(x)∥  ∈  [0,+∞].

For the computed value y^=f(x+h) of Absolute and relative forward error for an approximate value of a problem map, the quantity ∥h∥ is the absolute backward error. When x≠0, the quotient ∥h∥/∥x∥ is the relative backward error: the amount by which the data must be moved, relative to its size, for the computed answer to be exactly correct. At x=0 only the absolute backward error is defined. The condition number converts backward error into a bound on forward error; that conversion is Local conditioning times backward error controls forward error to first order.

Remarks

  • The infimum form is the limit of the supremum form. Because Sf,x is monotone in δ, the infimum over δ>0 equals the one-sided limit lim⁡δ→0+Sf,x(δ), which is the familiar definition of a condition number as the worst relative amplification of infinitesimal perturbations. The infimum formulation is used below because it is an honest value of the library's ordered arithmetic with no separate limit apparatus.

  • The value is allowed to be +∞. An ill-posed (discontinuous) map has infinite condition number at a point of discontinuity; κabs=+∞ is a legitimate value and no arithmetic is performed with it. The first-order conversion theorem only yields a finite bound when κabs<+∞.

  • Conditioning belongs to the problem, not to the algorithm. The condition number depends only on f, the point x, and the two norms; no algorithm enters its definition. The separate notion of stability belongs to an algorithm under an arithmetic model and is defined in Forward and backward stability for a problem family under an arithmetic model.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm

Definition

Let m,n∈N, let p∈Q with p≥1, and let A=(aij)∈Mm×n(R) be a real matrix (Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes), regarded as the linear map x↦Ax from Rn to Rm with the published p-norms (The p-norms ∥x∥p for rational p≥1, and ∥x∥∞). The matrix p-norm induced by ∥⋅∥p is

∥A∥p  :=  sup⁡{ ∥Ax∥p  :  x∈Rn, ∥x∥p≤1 }.

When n≥1, the following three displayed quantities are the same number:

∥A∥p=sup⁡∥x∥p≤1∥Ax∥p=sup⁡∥x∥p=1∥Ax∥p=sup⁡x≠0∥Ax∥p∥x∥p,

the equalities following from positive homogeneity of ∥⋅∥p (Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page, axiom (N2)) and the equality ∥0∥p=0.

The value is a finite nonnegative real. For n≥1 the norms ∥⋅∥p and ∥⋅∥2 are equivalent by For n≥1 all norms on Rn are equivalent, so there is C>0 with ∥x∥∞≤C∥x∥p for every x. For every i<m, ∣(Ax)i∣≤∑j<n∣aij∣ ∣xj∣≤(∑j<n∣aij∣)∥x∥∞≤C(∑j<n∣aij∣)∥x∥p, so ∥Ax∥p≤(∑i<m(∑j<n∣aij∣)p)1/pC∥x∥p; hence the supremum over the unit ball is at most the finite constant (∑i<m(∑j<n∣aij∣)p)1/pC.

The induced infinity norm is a separate named case. When m,n≥1, define

∥A∥∞  :=  sup⁡{ ∥Ax∥∞  :  x∈Rn, ∥x∥∞≤1 }.

As in the rational-p case, positive homogeneity gives

∥A∥∞=sup⁡∥x∥∞≤1∥Ax∥∞=sup⁡∥x∥∞=1∥Ax∥∞=sup⁡x≠0∥Ax∥∞∥x∥∞.

The supremum is finite because for every i<m one has ∣(Ax)i∣≤∑j<n∣aij∣ ∣xj∣≤(∑j<n∣aij∣)∥x∥∞, so

∥Ax∥∞≤max⁡i<m∑j<n∣aij∣ ∥x∥∞.

At n=0 the convention is explicit. The only element of R0 is the zero vector, the only matrix A∈Mm×0(R) is the empty matrix, and the unit-ball definition gives ∥A∥p=0. The unit sphere and the set of nonzero vectors are empty, so the two ratio formulas above are not asserted in this case.

The induced quantity is a norm on the matrix space Mm×n(R): for each rational p≥1, and likewise for the separately named ∞-case when m,n≥1, separation, absolute homogeneity and the triangle inequality follow from the same three axioms of the underlying vector norm (Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page) through the defining supremum. The compatibility with matrix-vector multiplication, the submultiplicativity and the value on identity matrices are Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1; the explicit value at p=1 and the separate ∞-formula are The induced 1-norm is the maximum column sum and the induced infinity-norm is the maximum row sum.

Remarks

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1

Statement

Let p∈Q with p≥1 and let m,n,q∈N, with the induced p-norms of The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm.

  1. Compatibility. For every A∈Mm×n(R) and every x∈Rn, ∥Ax∥p  ≤  ∥A∥p ∥x∥p.
  2. Submultiplicativity. For every A∈Mm×n(R) and B∈Mn×q(R), ∥AB∥p  ≤  ∥A∥p ∥B∥p.
  3. Normalisation. For every n≥1, ∥In∥p=1, where In is the identity matrix of Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes; at n=0 the unique empty matrix I0∈M0(R) has ∥I0∥p=0, the convention of The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A rational p≥1, natural numbers m,n,q, matrices A∈Mm×n(R), B∈Mn×q(R), and vectors x∈Rn.

[L1]

∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn and on Rm: in particular ∥0∥p=0 and ∥λy∥p=∣λ∣∥y∥p (Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page).

[L2]

The induced norm is ∥A∥p=sup⁡{∥Ay∥p:∥y∥p≤1} (The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2algebra

For x=0 the compatibility claim reads 0≤∥A∥p⋅0, which is true by [L1] and [L2].

1.2L1algebra

For x≠0 the vector ∥x∥p>0 by [L1], so ∥Ax∥p/∥x∥p=∥A(x/∥x∥p)∥p by homogeneity of [L1].

1.3L1L3algebra

For x=0 both sides of claim 2 are 0, using [L1] and [L3].

1.4L2L3algebra

For n≥1 every x≠0 attains ratio one: by [L3], ∥Inx∥p=∥x∥p, so ∥Inx∥p/∥x∥p=1, and the supremum in [L2] is therefore 1, which is claim 3 for n≥1.

1.5L2algebra

At n=0 the space R0 has only the zero vector, so the definition of The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm assigns ∥I0∥p=0, which is the stated exceptional value.

2.1step 1.2L2algebra

The scaled vector x/∥x∥p has p-norm 1, so ∥A(x/∥x∥p)∥p≤∥A∥p by [L2]; combining step 1.2 with this bound gives ∥Ax∥p≤∥A∥p∥x∥p, which with step 1.1 proves claim 1.

3.1step 2.1L3algebra

For x≠0 associativity of [L3] gives ∥(AB)x∥p=∥A(Bx)∥p, and applying claim 1 first to A at the vector Bx and then to B at the vector x gives ∥A(Bx)∥p≤∥A∥p∥Bx∥p≤∥A∥p∥B∥p∥x∥p.

4.1step 3.1L1L2algebra

Dividing step 3.1 by the positive number ∥x∥p and taking the supremum over all nonzero x in the definition of [L2] gives ∥AB∥p≤∥A∥p∥B∥p; with step 1.3 this is claim 2.

5.1step 2.1step 4.1step 1.4step 1.5∎

Claims 1, 2 and 3 are steps 2.1, 4.1, 1.4 and 1.5 respectively.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The induced 1-norm is the maximum column sum and the induced infinity-norm is the maximum row sum

Statement

Let m,n∈N with m≥1 and n≥1, and let A=(aij)∈Mm×n(R), with the induced 1-norm and the separately defined induced ∞-norm of The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm.

  1. Maximum column sum. ∥A∥1=max⁡j<n∑i<m∣aij∣.
  2. Maximum row sum. ∥A∥∞=max⁡i<m∑j<n∣aij∣.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Natural numbers m,n≥1, a matrix A=(aij)∈Mm×n(R), and vectors x=(xj)∈Rn.

[L1]

The 1-norm and the ∞-norm are ∥x∥1=∑j<n∣xj∣ and ∥x∥∞=max⁡{∣xj∣:j<n} (The p-norms ∥x∥p for rational p≥1, and ∥x∥∞); each is a norm, in particular the triangle inequality and ∣xj∣≤∥x∥∞ hold (Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page).

[L2]

The induced norm is the supremum of the ratio over nonzero vectors, and compatibility gives ∥Ax∥p≤∥A∥p∥x∥p (The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm, Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1).

[L3]

The standard basis vector ej∈Rn satisfies ej(j)=1 and ej(k)=0 for k≠j, and finite sums are evaluated pointwise; in particular (Aej)i=aij (The standard list e:n→Fn with ei(i)=1F and ei(j)=0F for j≠i is an ordered basis of Fn; hence dim⁡FFn=n, and F0 is the zero space with basis ∅ and dimension 0).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenL1

Write C:=max⁡j<n∑i<m∣aij∣; the maximum exists because it is a maximum of the nonempty finite set of column sums of [L1].

1.2L1algebra

Expanding the matrix-vector product entrywise and using the triangle inequality and absolute multiplicativity of [L1] gives ∥Ax∥1=∑i<m∣∑j<naijxj∣≤∑i<m∑j<n∣aij∣ ∣xj∣.

1.3L1

Write R:=max⁡i<m∑j<n∣aij∣, a maximum of a nonempty finite set of row sums by [L1].

2.1step 1.2step 1.1L1algebra

Exchanging the finite double sum in step 1.2 and bounding every column sum by C from step 1.1 gives ∥Ax∥1≤∑j<n(∑i<m∣aij∣)∣xj∣≤C∑j<n∣xj∣=C∥x∥1.

2.2step 1.1choose

Choose j∗<n attaining the maximum column sum, so ∑i<m∣aij∗∣=C, which exists by step 1.1.

2.3L1step 1.3algebra

For every i<m, ∣(Ax)i∣=∣∑j<naijxj∣≤∑j<n∣aij∣ ∣xj∣≤(∑j<n∣aij∣)∥x∥∞≤R∥x∥∞, using the triangle inequality, ∣xj∣≤∥x∥∞ and the definition of R.

2.4step 1.3choose

Choose i∗<m attaining the maximum row sum: ∑j<n∣ai∗j∣=R, which exists by step 1.3.

3.1step 2.1L2

By [L2] the induced norm is the supremum of the ratio over nonzero x, so step 2.1 gives ∥A∥1≤C.

3.2L1L3step 2.2

For the standard basis vector ej∗ of [L3], ∥ej∗∥1=1 and ∥Aej∗∥1=∑i<m∣aij∗∣=C, so the ratio ∥Aej∗∥1/∥ej∗∥1=C is attained and ∥A∥1≥C.

3.3step 2.3L1L2

Taking the maximum over i<m in step 2.3 gives ∥Ax∥∞≤R∥x∥∞, and by [L2] the induced ∞-norm is at most R.

3.4L1L3step 2.4algebra

Define x∈Rn by xj:=1 when ai∗j≥0 and xj:=−1 when ai∗j<0; then ∥x∥∞=1 and (Ax)i∗=∑j<nai∗jxj=∑j<n∣ai∗j∣=R, by [L1] and [L3].

4.1step 3.1step 3.2

Steps 3.1 and 3.2 give ∥A∥1=C, which is claim 1.

4.2step 3.4step 3.3L2

The vector x of step 3.4 attains the ratio R, so ∥A∥∞≥R; with step 3.3 this gives ∥A∥∞=R, which is claim 2.

5.1step 4.1step 4.2∎

Claims 1 and 2 are steps 4.1 and 4.2.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The Frobenius norm ∥A∥F=(∑i,j∣aij∣2)1/2 on real or complex matrices

Definition

Let F be R or C, let m,n∈N and let A=(aij)∈Mm×n(F). The Frobenius norm of A is

∥A∥F  :=  ( ∑i<m∑j<n∣aij∣2)1/2,

where ∣⋅∣ is the absolute value on R (Absolute value in an ordered field) for F=R and the modulus on C (Real and imaginary parts, complex conjugation, and modulus) for F=C, and the outer power is the nonnegative real square root.

The displayed quantity is a norm. Regard A as the element of the coordinate space Fmn whose j+in-th entry is aij. The standard coordinate inner product of The standard formulas ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn and ∑k<nxkyk‾ on Cn are inner products satisfies ⟨A,A⟩=∑i,jaijaij‾, which equals ∑i,j∣aij∣2 because zz‾=∣z∣2 (Conjugation is an involutive real-field automorphism, zz‾=∣z∣2, and modulus is definite, multiplicative, and subadditive). Thus ∥A∥F is exactly the inner-product norm of The norm ∥v∥=⟨v,v⟩ induced by a real or complex inner product evaluated at A, and the three norm axioms hold for ∥⋅∥F because they hold for every inner-product norm. For real matrices the same sum is ∑i,jaij2, since ∣x∣2=x2 for real x by the two cases of Absolute value in an ordered field.

The Frobenius norm is the Euclidean norm of the full entry list, not the largest factor by which the matrix stretches a single vector. It can coincide with an induced 2-norm in one-row or one-column cases, but in general it is a different matrix norm from the induced operator norms used on this page. Its relation to the spectral norm, its unitary invariance and its singular-value formula are Spectral and Frobenius norms are unitarily invariant, are given by singular values, and satisfy the sharp rank comparison.

Remarks

  • The name records the entry-sum definition. Different sources write ∥A∥F, ∥A∥F, or ∥A∥2,HS; this library uses ∥⋅∥F exclusively and does not fold it into the induced p-norm notation.

  • Zero-sized shapes are included. At m=0 or n=0 the double sum is the empty sum 0, so the unique empty matrix has Frobenius norm 0; this is the value of the inner-product norm of the zero space.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Spectral and Frobenius norms are unitarily invariant, are given by singular values, and satisfy the sharp rank comparison

Statement

Let F be R or C, let A∈Mm×n(F), and let σ1≥σ2≥⋯≥σr>0 be the positive singular values of A, where r=rank⁡A; write σ1=0 when r=0.

  1. Spectral formula. ∥A∥2=σ1, where ∥⋅∥2 is the operator norm of The operator norm is zero on the zero domain and otherwise is max_{||v||=1} ||Tv||.
  2. Frobenius formula. ∥A∥F=(σ12+⋯+σr2)1/2.
  3. Unitary invariance. For every unitary U∈Mm(F) and V∈Mn(F) (over F=R: orthogonal matrices), ∥UAV∥2=∥A∥2,∥UAV∥F=∥A∥F.
  4. Sharp rank comparison. ∥A∥2  ≤  ∥A∥F  ≤  r ∥A∥2. The lower inequality is an equality exactly when r≤1; the upper inequality is an equality exactly when σ1=⋯=σr, that is, when all nonzero singular values coincide. In particular ∥A∥F≤min⁡(m,n) ∥A∥2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A matrix A∈Mm×n(F) over F=R or C, with singular values σ1≥⋯≥σr>0.

[L1]

There is a singular value decomposition A=UΣV∗ with U,V unitary (orthogonal over R) and Σ the diagonal matrix of the singular values (Every linear map between finite-dimensional real or complex inner product spaces admits a singular value decomposition).

[L2]

The operator norm of a map between finite-dimensional real or complex inner product spaces equals its largest singular value (The operator norm is 0 on the zero domain and otherwise equals the largest singular value, attained at a right-singular vector).

[L3]

The rank of a linear map is the number of its positive singular values (The rank of a linear map is the number of its nonzero singular values).

[L4]

A unitary (orthogonal) operator preserves norms: ∥Qv∥=∥v∥ for every vector v (Linear isometries, and orthogonal or unitary operators on finite-dimensional inner product spaces).

[L5]

Compositions and adjoints of unitary operators are unitary (Orthogonal and unitary operators form groups, and their determinants have modulus one).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2

Claim 1 is [L2] applied to the map x↦Ax: ∥A∥2=σ1.

1.2L4algebra

Left invariance of the Frobenius norm. For unitary Q∈Mm(F), each column of QA is the image under Q of the corresponding column of A, so by [L4] ∥(QA) column j∥2=∥A column j∥2 for every j<n; summing over j gives ∥QA∥F2=∑j<n∥(QA)j∥22=∑j<n∥Aj∥22=∥A∥F2, using the entry formula of The Frobenius norm ∥A∥F=(∑i,j∣aij∣2)1/2 on real or complex matrices.

1.3L4algebra

Right invariance of the Frobenius norm. For unitary Z∈Mn(F), the i-th row of AZ is row⁡i(A)Z, and by [L4] applied to Z∗, ∥row⁡i(A)Z∥2=∥row⁡i(A)∥2 for every i<m; summing over i gives ∥AZ∥F2=∑i<m∥row⁡i(A)∥22=∥A∥F2.

1.4L1L5algebra

Singular values of UAV. If A=U0ΣV0∗ is the decomposition of [L1], then UAV=(UU0)Σ(V∗V0)=(UU0)Σ(V0∗V)∗, and by [L5] the factors UU0 and V0∗V are unitary, so this is a singular value decomposition of UAV with the same singular values as A.

2.1L1step 1.2step 1.3algebra

From [L1], A=UΣV∗, so steps 1.2 and 1.3 give ∥A∥F2=∥UΣV∗∥F2=∥Σ∥F2, and the diagonal entries of Σ are σ1,…,σr followed by zeros, so ∥Σ∥F2=σ12+⋯+σr2 by the entry formula of The Frobenius norm ∥A∥F=(∑i,j∣aij∣2)1/2 on real or complex matrices. This is claim 2.

3.1step 1.4step 1.1step 2.1

Claim 3 follows: by step 1.4 the singular values of UAV are those of A, so claim 1 gives ∥UAV∥2=σ1=∥A∥2 and claim 2 gives ∥UAV∥F=(∑jσj2)1/2=∥A∥F.

3.2step 1.1step 2.1L3algebra

The lower inequality. The maximum σ1 is at most the Euclidean total (σ12+⋯+σr2)1/2, each term being nonnegative, so claims 1 and 2 give ∥A∥2≤∥A∥F. Equality holds exactly when σ2=⋯=σr=0, that is exactly when r≤1 by [L3].

3.3step 1.1step 2.1algebra

The upper inequality. Each σj≤σ1, so σ12+⋯+σr2≤rσ12, and claims 1 and 2 give ∥A∥F≤r σ1=r ∥A∥2. Equality holds exactly when ∑j≤r(σ12−σj2)=0, a sum of nonnegative terms, hence exactly when every σj=σ1.

4.1step 3.3L3

Since r≤min⁡(m,n) by [L3], the upper bound also gives ∥A∥F≤min⁡(m,n) ∥A∥2.

5.1step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1step 3.2step 3.3step 4.1∎

Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 are steps 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and steps 3.2, 3.3 and 4.1.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system

Definition

Let n∈N with n≥1, let either p∈Q with p≥1 or p=∞, and let A∈GL⁡n(R) be an invertible real matrix (Invertible matrices and the general linear group GL⁡n(F)), so that the linear system Ax=b has the unique solution x=A−1b for every right-hand side b∈Rn. The condition number of the linear system (equivalently, of the matrix A) with respect to the induced p-norm of The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm, using its separately defined infinity case when p=∞, is

κp(A)  :=  ∥A∥p ∥A−1∥p  ∈  [1,+∞).

The value is at least one and is never infinite. The inverse A−1 is the unique two-sided inverse of A (Invertible matrices and the general linear group GL⁡n(F)), so AA−1=In and A−1A=In. For rational finite p, submultiplicativity and normalisation are Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1. For p=∞, the same properties follow directly from the defining supremum: ∥Ax∥∞≤∥A∥∞∥x∥∞ and applying this estimate twice gives submultiplicativity, while Inx=x gives ∥In∥∞=1. Hence in either case

1=∥In∥p=∥AA−1∥p≤∥A∥p ∥A−1∥p=κp(A).

Equivalently, κp(A) is the product of the largest factor by which A stretches a nonzero vector and the largest factor by which A−1 stretches one. Applying the same estimate to A−1 in place of A gives κp(A−1)=κp(A).

Remarks

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Right-hand-side perturbations in Ax = b are amplified by the condition number

Statement

Let n≥1, let p∈Q with p≥1, let A∈GL⁡n(R), let b,δb∈Rn with b≠0, let x=A−1b, and let δx∈Rn satisfy A(x+δx)=b+δb. Then

∥δx∥p∥x∥p  ≤  κp(A) ∥δb∥p∥b∥p.

In words: the relative perturbation of the solution is at most the condition number κp(A) of The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system times the relative perturbation of the right-hand side.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An invertible matrix A∈GL⁡n(R) with n≥1, vectors b,δb∈Rn with b≠0, x=A−1b and δx=A−1δb.

[L2]

Compatibility of the induced norm: ∥Ay∥p≤∥A∥p∥y∥p for every y (Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1).

[L3]

κp(A)=∥A∥p∥A−1∥p (The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenL1algebra

Subtracting the two equations gives Aδx=A(x+δx)−Ax=(b+δb)−b=δb, and multiplying on the left by A−1 with [L1] gives δx=A−1δb.

1.2givenL2algebra

Since b=Ax, [L2] gives ∥b∥p=∥Ax∥p≤∥A∥p∥x∥p, and b≠0 forces ∥b∥p>0 and ∥x∥p>0, so 1/∥x∥p≤∥A∥p/∥b∥p.

2.1step 1.1L2algebra

By [L2] applied to A−1 at the vector δb, step 1.1 gives ∥δx∥p=∥A−1δb∥p≤∥A−1∥p∥δb∥p.

3.1step 2.1step 1.2L3algebra

Multiplying the bound of step 2.1 by the bound of step 1.2 gives ∥δx∥p/∥x∥p≤∥A−1∥p∥A∥p∥δb∥p/∥b∥p, and [L3] identifies the coefficient product as κp(A), which is the stated bound.

4.1step 3.1∎

Step 3.1 proves the stated bound.

Remarks

  • The bound is sharp at p=2. The constant κ2(A) is optimal, but the two equalities in the proof are attained on different singular directions: choose x along a right singular vector for the largest singular value of A, so b=Ax has norm σmax⁡∥x∥2, and choose δb along a left singular vector for the smallest singular value, so ∥A−1δb∥2=σmin⁡−1∥δb∥2. Then the bound is attained with coefficient σmax⁡/σmin⁡=κ2(A).
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Matrix perturbations in Ax = b obey a first-order condition-number bound

Statement

Let n≥1, let p∈Q with p≥1, let A∈GL⁡n(R), let b∈Rn with b≠0, let δA∈Mn(R), let x=A−1b, and suppose δx∈Rn satisfies (A+δA)(x+δx)=b. Put

c  :=  ∥A−1∥p∥δA∥p  =  κp(A) ∥δA∥p∥A∥p.

If c<1 then

∥δx∥p∥x∥p  ≤  c1−c.

To first order in the matrix perturbation,

∥δx∥p∥x∥p  ≲  κp(A) ∥δA∥p∥A∥p,

because c/(1−c)=c+c2/(1−c)=c+O(c2) as c→0: the denominator 1−c contributes only a second-order correction when the relative matrix perturbation is small.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An invertible matrix A∈GL⁡n(R) with n≥1, vectors b≠0, x=A−1b, and δx with (A+δA)(x+δx)=b for a matrix δA; write c=∥A−1∥p∥δA∥p.

[L2]

Compatibility: ∥My∥p≤∥M∥p∥y∥p (Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1).

[L3]

κp(A)=∥A∥p∥A−1∥p (The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenalgebra

Expanding the perturbed equation and subtracting Ax=b gives Aδx+δA x+δA δx=0, so Aδx=−δA(x+δx).

2.1step 1.1L1algebra

Multiplying step 1.1 on the left by A−1 and using [L1] gives δx=−A−1δA(x+δx).

3.1step 2.1L2algebra

Taking norms in step 2.1 and applying [L2] twice gives ∥δx∥p=∥A−1δA(x+δx)∥p≤∥A−1∥p∥δA∥p∥x+δx∥p=c∥x+δx∥p.

4.1step 3.1algebra

The triangle inequality of the vector p-norm gives ∥x+δx∥p≤∥x∥p+∥δx∥p, so step 3.1 yields ∥δx∥p≤c∥x∥p+c∥δx∥p.

5.1step 4.1givenalgebra

Under the hypothesis c<1 the factor 1−c is positive, and rearranging step 4.1 gives (1−c)∥δx∥p≤c∥x∥p, hence ∥δx∥p/∥x∥p≤c/(1−c), the claimed exact bound; x≠0 because b≠0 and A is invertible.

6.1step 5.1L3algebra

The first-order form. Writing c=κp(A)∥δA∥p/∥A∥p by [L3], one has c/(1−c)=c+c2/(1−c), so the exact bound of step 5.1 reads ∥δx∥p/∥x∥p≤κp(A)∥δA∥p/∥A∥p+O(c2) with the error term tending to zero quadratically in c; to first order the amplification is κp(A) times the relative matrix perturbation.

7.1step 5.1step 6.1∎

Step 5.1 proves the exact bound and step 6.1 the first-order reading of it.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The reciprocal spectral condition number is the relative distance to singularity

Statement

Let n≥1, let A∈GL⁡n(R), let σ1≥⋯≥σn>0 be its singular values, and let ∥⋅∥2 be the spectral (operator) norm. Then:

  1. Smallest singular value as a minimum. σn=min⁡{∥Ax∥2:∥x∥2=1}.
  2. Distance to singularity. min⁡{∥E∥2  :  E∈Mn(R), A+E is singular}=σn, and the minimum is attained.
  3. Relative distance. min⁡A+E singular∥E∥2∥A∥2=σnσ1=1κ2(A), where κ2(A) is the condition number of The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system. Equivalently, ∥A−1∥2=1/σn.

In words: the nearest singular matrix to A lies at spectral distance σn, and that distance relative to the scale ∥A∥2=σ1 is exactly 1/κ2(A).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An invertible real matrix A∈GL⁡n(R) with n≥1, its singular values σ1≥⋯≥σn>0, and a matrix E∈Mn(R).

[L1]

There is a singular value decomposition A=UΣVT with orthogonal U,V and diagonal Σ of the singular values (Every linear map between finite-dimensional real or complex inner product spaces admits a singular value decomposition).

[L2]

The operator norm equals the largest singular value, attained at a right-singular vector (The operator norm is 0 on the zero domain and otherwise equals the largest singular value, attained at a right-singular vector).

[L3]

The rank of a matrix is the number of its positive singular values (The rank of a linear map is the number of its nonzero singular values).

[L5]

Unitary invariance and the singular-value formulas of Spectral and Frobenius norms are unitarily invariant, are given by singular values, and satisfy the sharp rank comparison: for orthogonal Q,Z the matrices QAZ and A have the same singular values, and ∥A∥2=σ1.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1algebra

Write A=UΣVT as in [L1]. For every unit vector x, expanding in the right-singular basis gives ∥Ax∥22=∑j<nσj2 ∣(VTx)j∣2≥σn2∑j<n∣(VTx)j∣2=σn2, the last equality because VT is orthogonal.

1.2L1L3L4algebra

Attainment. Let un and vn be the last columns of U and V from [L1], and put E∗:=−σn unvnT. Then A+E∗=U(Σ−σnenenT)VT has a zero on its last diagonal position, so its smallest singular value is 0; by [L3] its rank is at most n−1, and by [L4] it is singular.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra

At the last right-singular vector, ∥AVen∥2=∥σnUen∥2=σn, so the lower bound of step 1.1 is attained and σn=min⁡∥x∥2=1∥Ax∥2, which is claim 1.

3.1step 2.1L2L3algebra

Lower bound on the distance. If E makes A+E singular then A+E has rank at most n−1, and by [L3] its smallest singular value is 0. Every unit vector x satisfies ∥(A+E)x∥2≥∥Ax∥2−∥Ex∥2≥σn−∥E∥2, using claim 1 and the operator-norm bound ∥Ex∥2≤∥E∥2∥x∥2 of [L2].

4.1step 3.1step 2.1L3L4

If ∥E∥2<σn then step 3.1 gives ∥(A+E)x∥2>0 for every unit x, so the minimum of claim 1 applied to A+E is positive and every singular value of A+E is positive; by [L3] its rank is n, and by [L4] it is invertible. Hence no E with ∥E∥2<σn makes A+E singular: the distance is at least σn.

5.1step 1.2L2

The rank-one matrix unvnT has the singular values 1,0,…,0, so [L2] gives ∥E∗∥2=σn; combined with step 4.1, the minimum distance is exactly σn and is attained, which is claim 2.

6.1step 5.1L1L2L5algebra

By [L5], ∥A∥2=σ1; and A−1=VΣ−1UT by [L1], a matrix with singular values 1/σn≥⋯≥1/σ1, so [L2] gives ∥A−1∥2=1/σn. Hence κ2(A)=∥A∥2∥A−1∥2=σ1/σn by The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system, and claim 3 follows with claim 2.

7.1step 2.1step 5.1step 6.1∎

Claims 1, 2 and 3 are steps 2.1, 5.1 and 6.1.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Residual bounds on forward error for a nonsingular linear system

Statement

Let n≥1, let p∈Q with p≥1, let A∈GL⁡n(R), let b∈Rn with b≠0, let x=A−1b, and let x^∈Rn be an approximate solution with residual r:=b−Ax^ and error e:=x−x^. Then r=Ae and e=A−1r, and the following bounds hold:

  1. Absolute bounds. ∥e∥p  ≤  ∥A−1∥p ∥r∥p,∥r∥p  ≤  ∥A∥p ∥e∥p.
  2. Relative bounds. 1κp(A) ∥r∥p∥b∥p  ≤  ∥e∥p∥x∥p  ≤  κp(A) ∥r∥p∥b∥p, where κp(A) is the condition number of The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system.

In words: a small residual bounds the forward error below by ∥r∥p/∥A∥p, but bounds it above only up to the condition number κp(A).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An invertible matrix A∈GL⁡n(R) with n≥1, b≠0, x=A−1b, x^∈Rn, r=b−Ax^ and e=x−x^.

[L1]

A−1A=In (Invertible matrices and the general linear group GL⁡n(F)), and matrix multiplication distributes over addition, so A(x−x^)=Ax−Ax^ (Matrix multiplication is associative, unital, distributive, and compatible with scalar multiplication).

[L2]

Compatibility: ∥My∥p≤∥M∥p∥y∥p (Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1).

[L3]

κp(A)=∥A∥p∥A−1∥p (The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenL1algebra

Since Ax=b, the residual is r=b−Ax^=Ax−Ax^=A(x−x^)=Ae, using distributivity of [L1].

2.1step 1.1L1algebra

Multiplying r=Ae on the left by A−1 and using [L1] gives e=A−1r.

2.2step 1.1L2algebra

The lower absolute bound. Applying [L2] to A at the vector e in step 1.1 gives ∥r∥p=∥Ae∥p≤∥A∥p∥e∥p.

3.1step 2.1L2algebra

The upper absolute bound. Applying [L2] to A−1 at the vector r in step 2.1 gives ∥e∥p=∥A−1r∥p≤∥A−1∥p∥r∥p.

3.2step 2.2L2L3algebra

The lower relative bound. From x=A−1b and [L2], ∥x∥p≤∥A−1∥p∥b∥p, so 1/∥b∥p≤∥A−1∥p/∥x∥p; combining with step 2.2 gives ∥r∥p/∥b∥p≤∥A∥p∥A−1∥p∥e∥p/∥x∥p=κp(A)∥e∥p/∥x∥p by [L3], which rearranges to the lower bound on ∥e∥p/∥x∥p.

4.1step 3.1L2L3algebra

The upper relative bound. From b=Ax and [L2], ∥b∥p≤∥A∥p∥x∥p, and b≠0 forces ∥x∥p>0, so 1/∥x∥p≤∥A∥p/∥b∥p; multiplying by step 3.1 gives ∥e∥p/∥x∥p≤∥A−1∥p∥A∥p∥r∥p/∥b∥p=κp(A)∥r∥p/∥b∥p by [L3].

5.1step 3.1step 2.2step 4.1step 3.2∎

Claim 1 is steps 3.1 and 2.2, and claim 2 is steps 4.1 and 3.2.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Normwise and componentwise backward error for an approximate linear-system solution

Definition

Let n≥1, let p∈Q with p≥1, let A=(aij)∈GL⁡n(R), let b=(bi)∈Rn, and let x^∈Rn be an approximate solution of the system Ax=b with residual r=b−Ax^.

Normwise backward error. The normwise backward error of x^ is

ηp(x^)  :=  inf⁡{ ε≥0  :  there are ΔA∈Mn(R), Δb∈Rn with (A+ΔA)x^=b+Δb, ∥ΔA∥p≤ε∥A∥p, ∥Δb∥p≤ε∥b∥p },

where ∥⋅∥p on matrices is the induced norm of The matrix norm induced by a published vector p-norm and on vectors the p-norm.

Componentwise backward error. The componentwise backward error of x^ is

ω(x^)  :=  inf⁡{ ε≥0  :  there are ΔA=(Δaij), Δb=(Δbi) with (A+ΔA)x^=b+Δb, ∣Δaij∣≤ε∣aij∣ for all i,j<n, ∣Δbi∣≤ε∣bi∣ for all i<n },

with ∣⋅∣ the absolute value (Absolute value in an ordered field).

Both infima are over nonempty sets, so they are well defined. The single choice ΔA:=−A and Δb:=−b always satisfies the defining relation, because (A+ΔA)x^=0=b+Δb. It is admissible with ε=1 for both notions: normwise, ∥ΔA∥p=∥A∥p and ∥Δb∥p=∥b∥p; componentwise, ∣Δaij∣=∣aij∣ and ∣Δbi∣=∣bi∣. Hence each defining set is a nonempty subset of [0,∞) and therefore has an infimum.

In words: ηp(x^) is the smallest factor by which the data (A,b) must be perturbed, measured in the p-norm with the weights ∥A∥p and ∥b∥p, for the computed answer x^ to be exactly right; ω(x^) measures the same perturbation entrywise. The explicit residual formulas for both are Residual formulas for normwise and componentwise backward error.

Remarks

  • Backward error is about the data, not the answer. An approximate solution with small backward error is the exact solution of a nearby problem; the size of the forward error ∥x−x^∥ is governed separately by the condition number through Local conditioning times backward error controls forward error to first order.

  • The two notions are not interchangeable. Componentwise admissibility controls every entry and preserves the zero pattern of the data, whereas normwise admissibility controls only the declared aggregate norms. Neither definition gives the same numerical tolerance as the other without dimension- and data-dependent comparison factors. Sparse matrices make the distinction especially visible: ω preserves their zero pattern but ηp does not.

PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Residual formulas for normwise and componentwise backward error

Statement

Let n≥1, let A∈GL⁡n(R), let b∈Rn, let x^∈Rn, and put r=b−Ax^.

  1. Normwise formula (spectral norm). η2(x^)=∥r∥2∥A∥2∥x^∥2+∥b∥2, with the convention 0/0:=0.
  2. Componentwise formula. With (∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i:=∑j<n∣aij∣ ∣x^j∣, ω(x^)=max⁡i<n∣ri∣(∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i+∣bi∣, where a term with ∣ri∣=0 and denominator 0 is interpreted as 0. Every such degenerate term has ∣ri∣=0, so the maximum is a finite real number.

Here η2 and ω are the backward errors of Normwise and componentwise backward error for an approximate linear-system solution, and ∥⋅∥2 is the spectral (operator) norm, which on vectors is the Euclidean norm of Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An invertible matrix A∈GL⁡n(R) with n≥1, vectors b,x^∈Rn, the residual r=b−Ax^, and the backward errors η2(x^), ω(x^).

[L1]

An admissible perturbation satisfies ΔA x^−Δb=r and the stated norm or entrywise bounds (Normwise and componentwise backward error for an approximate linear-system solution).

[L2]

Compatibility of the induced spectral norm: ∥My∥2≤∥M∥2∥y∥2 (Induced matrix norms are compatible with matrix-vector multiplication, submultiplicative, and satisfy ||I|| = 1), and the vector 2-norm is the Euclidean norm with the triangle inequality (Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page).

[L5]

Absolute value: ∣u+v∣≤∣u∣+∣v∣ and ∣uv∣=∣u∣∣v∣ (Absolute value in an ordered field).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2algebra

Lower bound for the normwise error. For any admissible pair of [L1], ∥r∥2=∥ΔA x^−Δb∥2≤∥ΔA∥2∥x^∥2+∥Δb∥2≤ε(∥A∥2∥x^∥2+∥b∥2), using [L1], [L2] and the triangle inequality of [L2].

1.2L1L3algebraconstruct

Attainment for the normwise error. Put γ:=∥A∥2∥x^∥2+∥b∥2 and suppose first γ>0. If x^≠0, define ΔA:=(∥A∥2/γ) r x^T/∥x^∥2 and Δb:=−(∥b∥2/γ) r; then ΔA x^−Δb=r and, by [L3] applied row-wise, ∥r x^T∥2=∥r∥2∥x^∥2, so ∥ΔA∥2=η∥A∥2 and ∥Δb∥2=η∥b∥2 with η:=∥r∥2/γ.

1.3L1algebraconstruct

If x^=0 then r=b and γ=∥b∥2>0; the perturbations ΔA=0 and Δb=−r satisfy ΔA x^−Δb=r with ∥Δb∥2=∥r∥2=η∥b∥2, so the same η is attained.

1.4L1algebra

If γ=0 then ∥A∥2∥x^∥2=0 and b=0, so r=b−Ax^=0; the convention 0/0:=0 and the zero perturbations of [L1] give η2(x^)=0, matching the formula.

1.5L1L5algebra

Lower bound for the componentwise error. For any admissible pair of [L1], ∣ri∣=∣∑jΔaijx^j−Δbi∣≤∑j∣Δaij∣ ∣x^j∣+∣Δbi∣≤ε(∑j∣aij∣ ∣x^j∣+∣bi∣) by [L5] and the entrywise bounds of [L1].

1.6givenalgebra

A term with denominator 0 has bi=0 and aijx^j=0 for every j<n, so ri=bi−(Ax^)i=0; thus every degenerate term carries numerator 0, and the maximum is finite as claimed.

1.7constructalgebra

Attainment for the componentwise error. Put di:=(∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i+∣bi∣ and ω:=max⁡i<n∣ri∣/di with the convention of the statement. For each i<n with di>0 define Δbi:=−ri∣bi∣/di and, for each j<n, Δaij:=∣aij∣ sgn⁡(x^j) ri/di when x^j≠0 and Δaij:=0 when x^j=0; for di=0 set all these entries to 0.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Hence every admissible ε is at least ∥r∥2/(∥A∥2∥x^∥2+∥b∥2), so the infimum satisfies η2(x^)≥∥r∥2/(∥A∥2∥x^∥2+∥b∥2) when the denominator is positive.

2.2step 1.5algebra

For every i<n with (∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i+∣bi∣>0, step 1.5 gives ε≥∣ri∣/((∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i+∣bi∣), so every admissible ε is at least the maximum over such i; hence ω(x^)≥max⁡i<n∣ri∣/((∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i+∣bi∣) with the stated convention.

2.3step 1.7step 1.6L5algebra

For di>0 one has (ΔA x^)i=∑j∣aij∣ ∣x^j∣ ri/di=ri(∣A∣ ∣x^∣)i/di and Δbi=−ri∣bi∣/di, so (ΔA x^)i−Δbi=ri; and ∣Δaij∣=∣aij∣ ∣ri∣/di≤ω∣aij∣ together with ∣Δbi∣≤ω∣bi∣, since ∣ri∣≤ωdi. For di=0 every displayed entry vanishes and step 1.6 gives ri=0.

3.1step 2.1step 1.2step 1.3step 1.4

Combining steps 2.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, the infimum is attained and equals ∥r∥2/(∥A∥2∥x^∥2+∥b∥2) under the stated convention, which is claim 1.

3.2step 2.3step 2.2L1

The perturbations of step 1.7 are admissible with ε=ω by step 2.3, so ω(x^)≤ω; with step 2.2 the formula of claim 2 holds.

4.1step 3.1step 3.2∎

Claim 1 is step 3.1 and claim 2 is step 3.2.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff

Definition

A floating-point system. A floating-point system consists of a nonempty finite set F⊆R of representable numbers with 0∈F and −F=F, a positive real Nmax⁡∈F (the largest normal magnitude), a positive real Nmin⁡∈F (the smallest normal magnitude), with Nmin⁡≤Nmax⁡, and a rounding map fl⁡ defined on 0 and on the real numbers t with Nmin⁡≤∣t∣≤Nmax⁡, taking values in F and satisfying fl⁡(0)=0.

Unit roundoff. A real u>0 is a unit roundoff for the system when every real t with Nmin⁡≤∣t∣≤Nmax⁡ satisfies

fl⁡(t)=t(1+δ)for some δ with ∣δ∣≤u,

with ∣⋅∣ the absolute value (Absolute value in an ordered field). The model quantifies all subsequent error analysis through the single constant u and says nothing about the internal bit representation beyond the bound ∣δ∣≤u.

The standard relative model. For each operation ∘∈{+,−,×,÷} and all x,y∈F such that x∘y is zero or is a real number in the normal range (Nmin⁡≤∣x∘y∣≤Nmax⁡; for ÷ this includes y≠0), the computed result is

fl⁡(x∘y)=(x∘y)(1+δ)for some δ with ∣δ∣≤u.

When x∘y=0, this identity is the exact-zero rule fl⁡(0)=0 and one may take δ=0.

The exclusions are part of the model, and are stated explicitly.

  • Overflow is excluded: when ∣x∘y∣>Nmax⁡ the result is not a real number of the form (x∘y)(1+δ) with ∣δ∣≤u.
  • Underflow is excluded: when 0<∣x∘y∣<Nmin⁡ the result falls into the subnormal or lost range and need not satisfy the relative bound.
  • Invalid operations are excluded: when x∘y is not a real number (for example 0/0), there is no real δ for the displayed identity.

Every item on this page that uses the model therefore carries the hypotheses that the relevant operations lie in the normal range, and statements about overflow, underflow or invalid operations are made only where the exclusion is mentioned.

Remarks

  • The running example. In the IEEE-754 binary64 system the unit roundoff is u=2−53, the largest normal magnitude is Nmax⁡=(2−2−52) 21023≈1.798⋅10308, and the smallest normal magnitude is Nmin⁡=2−1022. The counterexample page uses these three numbers to exhibit the excluded events.

  • The exclusions are needed, not decorative. Each excluded event genuinely produces a value that is not of the form (x∘y)(1+δ) with ∣δ∣≤u: overflow at ((3/2)21023)⋅2 gives +∞, underflow at 2−1074/2 rounds to 0, and 0/0 gives NaN⁡.

  • The model is an assumption, not a theorem about hardware. Statements proved under this model are conditional on the displayed inequalities; they say "if every operation rounds this accurately, then the following error bound holds". That is exactly what makes the bounds of The computed floating-point dot product obeys componentwise and normwise error bounds transportable to any hardware conforming to the model.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Forward and backward stability for a problem family under an arithmetic model

Definition

Fix normed spaces (X,∥⋅∥X) and (Y,∥⋅∥Y) over R (A norm on a real vector space, the induced metric, and the dictionary with the metric axioms), a map f:X→Y, a class I⊆dom⁡f of inputs, an arithmetic model with unit roundoff u (The standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff), and an algorithm that, for each input x∈I, returns an approximate value y^∈Y of Absolute and relative forward error for an approximate value of a problem map.

Backward stability. The algorithm is backward stable on I when there is a constant C≥0 such that for every x∈I there is an input x~∈dom⁡f with

y^=f(x~)and∥x~−x∥X≤C u ∥x∥X.

The computed answer is exactly right for a slightly perturbed input, and the perturbation is at most a fixed multiple C of the unit roundoff.

Forward stability. The algorithm is forward stable on I when there is a constant C≥0 such that for every x∈I with f(x)≠0,

∥y^−f(x)∥Y∥f(x)∥Y≤C u.

The standard linear-system specialization. Fix n≥1 and a rational p≥1. For the problem "given A∈GL⁡n(R) and b, return x with Ax=b", one usually measures the two data components separately rather than forcing the pair (A,b) into the single fixed input norm above. An algorithm is called normwise backward stable on a declared class of systems when one constant C makes every returned x^ satisfy ηp(x^)≤Cu in the sense of Normwise and componentwise backward error for an approximate linear-system solution; the componentwise specialization requires ω(x^)≤Cu. Thus there are perturbations ΔA,Δb with (A+ΔA)x^=b+Δb and separately measured relative sizes at most Cu. These are specialized product-wise definitions, not literal instances of one undeclared norm on the data pairs. Stability remains a property of the algorithm on the problem class, while the condition number is a property of the problem itself.

Remarks

  • Backward stability does not by itself bound the forward error. It bounds the data perturbation; converting that into an answer bound costs one factor of the condition number, by Local conditioning times backward error controls forward error to first order. A backward-stable algorithm on an ill-conditioned problem can still return a large forward error: for A=diag⁡(1,ε), b=(1,ε), and x^=(1,0), the backward error is O(ε) while the relative forward error is 1/2.

  • The constant C is part of the honest statement. The definition records "at most C times the unit roundoff" for some fixed C, not "exactly the unit roundoff"; polynomial growth in the dimension is folded into C, and a stability claim without its class I and its constant is not a stability claim.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

If |delta_i| <= u and n u < 1, then prod (1+delta_i) = 1 + theta_n with |theta_n| <= gamma_n

Statement

Let n∈N with n≥1, let u≥0, let δ0,…,δn−1∈R satisfy ∣δi∣≤u for every i<n, and suppose nu<1. Then

∏i<n(1+δi)=1+θnwith∣θn∣≤γn:=nu1−nu.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A natural number n≥1, a real u≥0 with nu<1, and reals δ0,…,δn−1 with ∣δi∣≤u; write γn:=nu/(1−nu).

[L1]

The hypothesis nu<1 gives u<1, hence 1−u>0 and 1+u>0; the unit roundoff vocabulary comes from The standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff.

[L2]

Binomial expansion over the reals: (1+t)n=∑k≤n(nk)tk (The binomial theorem in R: (x+y)n=∑k<n+1ι ⁣(nk) xky n−k), and the binomial coefficient satisfies (nk)≤nk for every k≤n.

[L3]

Geometric series: for a real r with 0≤r<1, ∑k=0∞rk=1/(1−r) (For ∣r∣<1, ∑k≥0rk=1/(1−r), and for ∣r∣≥1 the series diverges).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1algebra

Since ∣δi∣≤u, each factor satisfies 1−u≤1+δi≤1+u, and the factors 1±u are nonnegative by [L1]; multiplying the inequalities across i<n gives (1−u)n≤∏i<n(1+δi)≤(1+u)n.

1.2L2algebra

Upper deviation. By [L2], (1+u)n−1=∑k=1n(nk)uk≤∑k=1nnkuk, since (nk)≤nk and u≥0.

2.1step 1.2L3algebra

The geometric series of [L3] at r=nu, where 0≤nu<1, gives ∑k=1∞(nu)k=nu/(1−nu)=γn, so step 1.2 gives (1+u)n−1≤γn.

3.1L2step 1.2step 2.1algebra

Lower deviation. By [L2], 1−(1−u)n=−∑k=1n(nk)(−u)k=∑k=1n(nk)(−1)k+1uk≤∑k=1n(nk)uk≤γn, the last estimate being step 1.2 and step 2.1; hence (1−u)n≥1−γn.

4.1step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1algebra

Define θn:=∏i<n(1+δi)−1. Step 1.1 gives (1−u)n−1≤θn≤(1+u)n−1, and steps 2.1 and 3.1 give (1−u)n−1≥−γn and (1+u)n−1≤γn, so −γn≤θn≤γn, that is ∣θn∣≤γn.

5.1step 4.1∎

Step 4.1 is exactly the claim.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

The computed floating-point dot product obeys componentwise and normwise error bounds

Statement

Let n≥1 and let x=(xj),y=(yj)∈Rn, with the dot product x⋅y=∑j<nxjyj computed from left to right in an arithmetic model with unit roundoff u satisfying nu<1 (The standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff), where every product xjyj, every rounded product pj:=fl⁡(xjyj), and every intermediate sum lies in the normal range. Let s1:=p0 and, for 1≤k<n, let sk+1:=fl⁡(sk+pk). Then:

  1. Componentwise form. There are reals δ0,…,δn−1 with ∣δj∣≤γn:=nu/(1−nu) such that sn=∑j<nxjyj(1+δj).
  2. Normwise form. ∣sn−x⋅y∣  ≤  γn∑j<n∣xjyj∣  ≤  γn ∥x∥1∥y∥1, where ∥⋅∥1 is the published 1-norm (The p-norms ∥x∥p for rational p≥1, and ∥x∥∞, Each ∥⋅∥p is a norm on Rn, and the induced metrics are exactly d1, d2 and d∞ of the published metric-spaces page) and ∣⋅∣ the absolute value (Absolute value in an ordered field).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A natural number n≥1, vectors x,y∈Rn, a unit roundoff u with nu<1, the rounded products pj=fl⁡(xjyj) for j<n, and the left-to-right computed sum sn above.

[L1]

Each product and each sum obeys the relative model: fl⁡(t)=t(1+ε) with ∣ε∣≤u for every real t in the normal range (The standard relative floating-point model and unit roundoff).

[L2]

A product of factors (1+εi)i<m with m≤n and ∣εi∣≤u for every i<m equals 1+δ with ∣δ∣≤γm≤γn, where γn=nu/(1−nu) (If |delta_i| <= u and n u < 1, then prod (1+delta_i) = 1 + theta_n with |theta_n| <= gamma_n).

[L3]

∥x∥1=∑j<n∣xj∣, and ∣xjyj∣=∣xj∣ ∣yj∣ (The p-norms ∥x∥p for rational p≥1, and ∥x∥∞, Absolute value in an ordered field).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenL1

By [L1], for each j<n there is πj with pj=xjyj(1+πj) and ∣πj∣≤u; and for each k with 1≤k<n there is αk with sk+1=(sk+pk)(1+αk) and ∣αk∣≤u.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Unrolling the recursion of step 1.1 gives sn=x0y0(1+π0)∏k=1n−1(1+αk)+∑j=1n−1xjyj(1+πj)∏k=jn−1(1+αk), where every empty product is 1; each coefficient is the product of the error factor from the rounded multiplication pj and the error factors from the later additions through which that term passes.

3.1step 2.1L2algebra

The coefficient of x0y0 in step 2.1 is a product of exactly n factors of the form 1+ε with ∣ε∣≤u, and for each j with 1≤j<n the coefficient of xjyj is a product of n−j+1≤n such factors. By [L2], each coefficient therefore equals 1+δj with ∣δj∣≤γn, so step 2.1 becomes sn=∑j<nxjyj(1+δj), which is claim 1.

4.1step 3.1L3algebra

Subtracting x⋅y=∑jxjyj from claim 1 gives sn−x⋅y=∑jxjyjδj, so by the triangle inequality and [L3] ∣sn−x⋅y∣≤∑j∣xjyj∣ ∣δj∣≤γn∑j∣xjyj∣.

5.1step 4.1L3algebra

Since ∑j∣xjyj∣=∑j∣xj∣ ∣yj∣≤(∑j∣xj∣)(∑k∣yk∣)=∥x∥1∥y∥1 by [L3], step 4.1 gives the normwise form of claim 2.

6.1step 3.1step 4.1step 5.1∎

Claim 1 is step 3.1 and claim 2 is steps 4.1 and 5.1.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Local conditioning times backward error controls forward error to first order

Statement

Let f:X→Y be a map between normed spaces, let x∈dom⁡f, and let κ:=κabs(f,x) be the absolute local condition number of Absolute and relative local condition numbers of a problem map.

  1. Quantified form. If κ<+∞, then for every c>κ there is a δ>0 such that every h∈X with 0<∥h∥<δ and x+h∈dom⁡f satisfies ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥  ≤  c ∥h∥.
  2. First-order form. If κ<+∞, then along admissible h, ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥  ≤  (κ+o(1))∥h∥as ∥h∥→0, that is: for every ε>0 there is δ>0 such that 0<∥h∥<δ implies ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥≤(κ+ε)∥h∥.
  3. Relative form. If additionally x≠0 and f(x)≠0, and κrel:=κ ∥x∥/∥f(x)∥, then along admissible h, ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥∥f(x)∥  ≤  (κrel+o(1))∥h∥∥x∥as ∥h∥→0.

In the vocabulary of Forward and backward stability for a problem family under an arithmetic model: a computed value y^=f(x+h) has backward error ∥h∥, and its forward error is, to first order in that backward error, at most the condition number times the backward error; the linear-system instance uses the backward error of Normwise and componentwise backward error for an approximate linear-system solution.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Normed spaces X,Y, a map f:X→Y, a point x∈dom⁡f, and κ=inf⁡δ>0Sf,x(δ) where Sf,x(δ)=sup⁡{∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥/∥h∥:0<∥h∥<δ, x+h∈dom⁡f}.

[L1]

The absolute condition number is the infimum over δ>0 of the nondecreasing map δ↦Sf,x(δ) (Absolute and relative local condition numbers of a problem map).

[L2]

An infimum characterisation: if κ is the infimum of a set S⊆[0,+∞], then for every c>κ there is an element s∈S with s<c; in particular for every c>κ there is δ>0 with Sf,x(δ)<c.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2choose

By [L2] applied to the set S={Sf,x(δ):δ>0} whose infimum is κ by [L1], every c>κ admits some δ0>0 with Sf,x(δ0)<c.

2.1step 1.1givenalgebra

By the definition of Sf,x(δ0) as a supremum, every admissible h with 0<∥h∥<δ0 satisfies ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥/∥h∥≤Sf,x(δ0)<c, hence ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥≤c∥h∥, which is claim 1 with δ:=δ0.

3.1step 2.1algebra

For every ε>0 the number c:=κ+ε is strictly larger than κ, so claim 1 supplies δ>0 with ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥≤(κ+ε)∥h∥ for all admissible h of norm below δ; this is exactly the stated bound, which is claim 2.

4.1step 3.1givenalgebra

For the relative form, divide the inequality of claim 2 by the fixed positive number ∥f(x)∥ and multiply by the fixed positive number ∥x∥: ∥f(x+h)−f(x)∥/∥f(x)∥≤(κ+ε)∥h∥/∥f(x)∥=(κ∥x∥/∥f(x)∥+ε∥x∥/∥f(x)∥)∥h∥/∥x∥, and the error term is o(1)∥h∥/∥x∥ because the positive constants ∥x∥,∥f(x)∥ are fixed, which is claim 3.

5.1step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1∎

Claims 1, 2 and 3 are steps 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

For full-column-rank A, the normal equations square the spectral condition number

Statement

Let m,n∈N with n≥1 and m≥n, and let A∈Mm×n(R) have full column rank (rank n), with singular values σ1≥⋯≥σn>0. Define the spectral condition number of the rectangular matrix A by

κ2(A):=σ1σn;

for a square invertible A this agrees with ∥A∥2∥A−1∥2 of The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system. Then:

  1. The normal-equation matrix ATA is invertible, with κ2(ATA)=κ2(A)2;
  2. equivalently, κ2(ATA)=σ12σn2.

The least-squares normal equation ATAx=ATb of For a linear map T:V→W between finite-dimensional inner-product spaces, x minimises ∥Tx−b∥ if and only if T∗(Tx−b)=0, equivalently T∗Tx=T∗b; minimisers exist and any two differ by an element of ker⁡T therefore has condition number exactly the square of the condition number of the least-squares problem itself.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A matrix A∈Mm×n(R) of full column rank with n≥1, m≥n, and singular values σ1≥⋯≥σn>0.

[L1]

There is a singular value decomposition A=UΣVT with orthogonal U∈Mm(R), V∈Mn(R) and Σ diagonal with entries σ1,…,σn on the n×n block (Every linear map between finite-dimensional real or complex inner product spaces admits a singular value decomposition).

[L3]

The rank of a linear map is the number of its positive singular values; in particular the full-column-rank hypothesis is exactly σn>0 (The rank of a linear map is the number of its nonzero singular values).

[L4]

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L4algebra

From [L1], ATA=VΣTΣVT, and ΣTΣ=diag⁡(σ12,…,σn2) is diagonal with decreasing nonnegative entries; by [L4], V is orthogonal with VVT=In.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra

The displayed product Vdiag⁡(σj2)VT is a singular value decomposition of ATA with singular values σ12≥⋯≥σn2, since the two orthogonal factors are V and V.

3.1step 2.1L3L4algebra

By [L3], full column rank means σn>0, so every singular value of ATA in step 2.1 is positive, and ATA has the inverse Vdiag⁡(σj−2)VT: the two products with ATA give In by [L4].

4.1step 2.1step 3.1L2algebra

By [L2] applied to ATA and to its inverse, ∥ATA∥2=σ12 and ∥(ATA)−1∥2=σn−2, the largest singular value of Vdiag⁡(σj−2)VT being σn−2; hence κ2(ATA)=σ12σn−2.

5.1step 4.1L1L2algebra

By the definition of κ2(A) in the Statement, κ2(A)2=σ12/σn2, which equals the value in step 4.1; this is claim 2, and claim 1 is its equivalence with the condition number of the square invertible matrix ATA from The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system, the displayed agreement for square A being ∥A−1∥2=σn−1 by [L2] applied to the SVD A−1=VΣ−1UT of [L1].

6.1step 5.1L5

The normal equation of [L5] has coefficient matrix ATA, so its condition number is the one computed in step 5.1.

7.1step 5.1step 6.1∎

Claims 1 and 2 are step 5.1, and the final sentence is step 6.1.

Remarks

  • The square is unavoidable for the normal-equation route. Forming ATA squares the condition number even though the least-squares problem itself has condition number κ2(A); computing with A directly through a QR route keeps the factor κ2(A) instead. For A=(10010−800), the Gram-Schmidt factor is R=diag⁡(1,10−8) while ATA=diag⁡(1,10−16).
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Exact rank is locally constant at full-rank matrices and discontinuous at nonmaximal-rank matrices

Statement

Let m,n∈N with m≥1 and n≥1, let A∈Mm×n(R), let k:=min⁡(m,n), and let ∥⋅∥2 be the spectral norm.

  1. Locally constant at full rank. If rank⁡A=k and σk is the smallest singular value of A (which is positive), then every B∈Mm×n(R) with ∥B−A∥2<σk satisfies rank⁡B=k.
  2. Discontinuous at nonmaximal rank. If rank⁡A=r<k, then for every ε>0 there is B∈Mm×n(R) with ∥B−A∥2<ε and rank⁡B=r+1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Natural numbers m,n≥1, a matrix A∈Mm×n(R) with rank r and singular values σ1≥⋯≥σr>0, and k=min⁡(m,n).

[L1]

There is a singular value decomposition A=UΣVT with orthogonal U,V and diagonal Σ; likewise every matrix B∈Mm×n(R) admits one (Every linear map between finite-dimensional real or complex inner product spaces admits a singular value decomposition).

[L2]

The rank of a matrix is the number of its positive singular values (The rank of a linear map is the number of its nonzero singular values).

[L3]

The spectral norm of a matrix equals its largest singular value, and ∥My∥2≤∥M∥2∥y∥2 for every vector y (Spectral and Frobenius norms are unitarily invariant, are given by singular values, and satisfy the sharp rank comparison).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2

If rank⁡A=k, then by [L2] there are exactly k positive singular values, so the smallest one, σk, is positive.

1.2L1algebra

Full-column-rank lower bound. Suppose n≤m and B∈Mm×n(R) has singular values τ1≥⋯≥τn. Writing a unit vector x in the right-singular basis of the decomposition from [L1] gives ∥Bx∥22=∑j<nτj2∣(VTx)j∣2≥τn2, attained at the last right-singular vector. Hence τn=min⁡∥x∥2=1∥Bx∥2.

1.3L1givenalgebra

Suppose rank⁡A=r<k; then both r<m and r<n, so the decomposition of [L1] has a left singular vector ur+1∈Rm and a right singular vector vr+1∈Rn beyond the positive singular values.

1.4L1L2algebraconstruct

For ε>0 put Bε:=A+ε ur+1vr+1T. Then Bε=U(Σ+ε er+1er+1T)VT is a singular value decomposition of Bε with positive singular values σ1,…,σr,ε, so by [L2] rank⁡Bε=r+1.

2.1step 1.2L2L3algebra

Assume first that rank⁡A=k and n≤m. Applying step 1.2 to A gives ∥Ax∥2≥σk for every unit vector x, and [L3] gives ∥Ex∥2≤∥E∥2 for E:=B−A; so ∥Bx∥2=∥Ax+Ex∥2≥∥Ax∥2−∥Ex∥2≥σk−∥E∥2. If ∥E∥2<σk, then ∥Bx∥2>0 for every unit vector x, so step 1.2 applied to B gives its smallest singular value τn>0. Therefore [L2] gives rank⁡B=n=k.

2.2step 1.4L3algebra

Fix ε>0 and set η:=ε/2. Step 1.4 gives rank⁡Bη=r+1. By [L3], the spectral norm of η ur+1vr+1T is η times the largest singular value of the rank-one matrix ur+1vr+1T, whose only positive singular value is 1; hence ∥Bη−A∥2=η<ε. This proves the discontinuity claim.

3.1L1L3step 2.1algebra

Assume next that rank⁡A=k and m<n. Then AT has full column rank m and the same positive singular values as A by [L1], so its smallest singular value is again σk. The same transpose relation holds for BT, and [L3] gives ∥BT−AT∥2=∥B−A∥2. Applying step 2.1 to AT and BT yields rank⁡BT=m, hence rank⁡B=m=k.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1

Steps 2.1 and 3.1 prove the local-constancy claim.

5.1step 4.1step 2.2∎

Claim 1 is step 4.1 and claim 2 is step 2.2.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

Numerical rank relative to a declared norm, scale, and tolerance

Definition

Let m,n∈N, let F be R or C, let ∥⋅∥ be a declared norm on the matrix space Mm×n(F), let A∈Mm×n(F), and let τ≥0 be a declared tolerance. The numerical rank of A at tolerance τ is

rank⁡τ(A)  :=  min⁡{ rank⁡B  :  B∈Mm×n(F), ∥A−B∥≤τ }.

The minimum exists: it is a minimum of a nonempty subset of the finite set {0,1,…,min⁡(m,n)}, the value rank⁡A being attained at B=A.

Scale. The tolerance may be declared absolutely, as a real number τ≥0, or relative to a scale, as τ=τ0∥A∥ for a declared factor τ0≥0. Both enter the definition through the single threshold τ; the scale only fixes which threshold is meant, and every statement about rank⁡τ is a statement about that one threshold.

Why the exact-rank discontinuity forces the parameter. Exact rank is locally constant at the full-rank matrices but discontinuous at every nonmaximal-rank matrix (Exact rank is locally constant at full-rank matrices and discontinuous at nonmaximal-rank matrices); an exact rank read from noisy data is therefore unstable. Numerical rank replaces exact rank by the smallest exact rank attainable within the declared norm tolerance τ: it is, by construction, constant on every open ball of radius below the relevant gaps, and it counts as rank exactly those directions that perturbation of size at most τ cannot erase.

Remarks

  • The choice of norm is part of the data. Different norms give different distances to the low-rank sets, hence possibly different numerical ranks for the same matrix and tolerance. The spectral specialisation is In the spectral norm, numerical rank counts the singular values above the declared threshold; the dependence on the declared tolerance itself is genuine: for A=diag⁡(1,1/2,0), the tolerances 3/4 and 1/4 give the numerical ranks 1 and 2 respectively.

  • Numerical rank is not a substitute for exact rank. It answers a different question: which rank is stable under perturbations of size at most τ, not what the exact rank is. In the spectral norm, if A≠0, the two ranks agree exactly when τ is strictly smaller than the smallest nonzero singular value of A; for A=0 they agree for every τ≥0. Once τ reaches a positive singular value, the numerical rank can drop.

PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-29Open item page →

In the spectral norm, numerical rank counts the singular values above the declared threshold

Statement

Let m,n∈N with m≥1 and n≥1, let A∈Mm×n(R) with singular values σ1≥⋯≥σmin⁡(m,n)≥0, let τ≥0, and let ∥⋅∥2 be the spectral norm. Then

rank⁡τ(A)=#{ j∈{1,…,min⁡(m,n)}  :  σj>τ },

where rank⁡τ(A) is the numerical rank of Numerical rank relative to a declared norm, scale, and tolerance. Consequently, if two tolerances τ<τ′ have a singular value σj with τ<σj≤τ′, then rank⁡τ(A)>rank⁡τ′(A): moving the threshold past a singular value changes the numerical rank.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Natural numbers m,n≥1, a matrix A∈Mm×n(R) with singular values σ1≥⋯≥σmin⁡(m,n)≥0, and a tolerance τ≥0.

[L1]

Numerical rank: rank⁡τ(A)=min⁡{rank⁡B:∥A−B∥2≤τ} (Numerical rank relative to a declared norm, scale, and tolerance).

[L2]

Eckart–Young: for 0≤k<dim⁡Rn=n, the least spectral-norm distance from A to the matrices of rank at most k is σk+1, with the convention σk+1=0 when k exceeds the number of positive singular values (The best rank-at-most-k approximation in operator norm is the rank-k truncation of a singular value decomposition).

[L3]

The rank of a matrix is the number of its positive singular values (The rank of a linear map is the number of its nonzero singular values).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2L3algebra

For k≥min⁡(m,n) the matrix A itself has rank at most min⁡(m,n)≤k by [L3], so the distance to rank at most k is 0; with the convention of [L2] this agrees with σk+1=0. For 0≤k<min⁡(m,n)≤n, [L2] gives the distance σk+1. Hence for every k≥0, min⁡{∥A−B∥2:rank⁡B≤k}=σk+1.

1.2algebra

Let q:=#{j∈{1,…,min⁡(m,n)}:σj>τ}. If q<min⁡(m,n) then σq+1≤τ while σq>τ; if q=min⁡(m,n) then all singular values exceed τ and σmin⁡(m,n)+1:=0≤τ. In both cases min⁡{k≥0:σk+1≤τ}=q, because every k<q has σk+1≥σq>τ.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra

By step 1.1, there exists a matrix B with rank⁡B≤k and ∥A−B∥2≤τ exactly when σk+1≤τ. Therefore [L1] gives rank⁡τ(A)=min⁡{k≥0:σk+1≤τ}.

3.1step 2.1step 1.2

Steps 2.1 and 1.2 give rank⁡τ(A)=q, which is the displayed formula.

4.1step 3.1algebra

If τ<σj≤τ′ then j is counted at tolerance τ but not at tolerance τ′, and no larger index is counted at τ′; hence rank⁡τ(A)>rank⁡τ′(A), the stated consequence.

5.1step 3.1step 4.1∎

Step 3.1 proves the formula and step 4.1 the consequence.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources