mirror of
https://github.com/kuhyx/WUT_Computer_Science.git
synced 2026-11-10 19:07:11 +01:00
Krzysztof kuhy Rudnicki
ffa5dad02a
The 250-line cap applies to prose too, and the reports were the worst
offenders -- ENUME's projectA.tex alone was 1,876 lines. Each is now a
preamble plus one \input{} per section, which is how a long LaTeX document is
normally organised; not one byte of prose was rewritten.
"The PDF is unchanged" is checked by a script rather than by eye, because
hashing the PDF cannot work: pdflatex stamps a /CreationDate and an /ID into
every build, so two runs of the SAME source already differ. tex_fingerprint.sh
compares what a reader sees instead -- page count plus a hash of the extracted
text -- and it is stable across rebuilds of untouched sources, which is the
property that makes it usable as a gate.
It earned its keep immediately. Both ECOTE reports quote an example LaTeX
document inside an lstlisting block, so \end{document} appears in the middle
of the file; splitting on the FIRST one stranded everything after it. Same
page count, different text, caught automatically. EOPSY lab3 exposed a second
bug: a \section{} title that runs onto the next line.
Result: 19 .tex over the cap -> 1. The survivor,
ELAC/.../03-building-nfa-...tex, is 418 lines of consecutive tikz figures
with no subsection to split on and needs a hand-placed boundary.
Verified: 29 splits across two passes (section, then subsection for the
pieces still over), every one reporting `unchanged` from
scripts/tex_fingerprint.sh --check.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172dj34FDpao6wsix8ZuCzE
28 lines
941 B
TeX
28 lines
941 B
TeX
\section{Discussion of the result}
|
|
Following plot was generated using \hyperlink{function4}{task4Plot} function, using maxMatrixSize = 25 and generating random symmetrical matrix of size i x i in each loop. Both QR methods were given exactly the same matrices.
|
|
\subsection{Plot}
|
|
|
|
\begin{center}
|
|
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{task4plot.eps}
|
|
\end{center}
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\subsection{Shift method superiority}
|
|
As we can see:
|
|
QR method with shifts is much more efficient and reliable.
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item For big enough matrices it requires ten times less iterations compared to QR method without shifts.
|
|
\item It is more efficient in our chosen matrix.
|
|
\item It can work with non-symetric matrices
|
|
\item Has no problem with generating complex eigen values.
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
One thing that does not change much is the precision, with both algorithms outputting similar results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\addtocontents{toc}{\protect\newpage}
|
|
\chapter{Code appendix}
|
|
|