(17, 5) and (23, 7) reduced in 3 steps
Lagrange's reduction, run on the basis (17, 5), (23, 7). Each step subtracts a whole multiple of the shorter vector from the longer and swaps them; after 3 steps neither can be shortened by the other and the pair is reduced. The faint arrows are the intermediate bases and the solid pair is the answer, of length 1.41. The procedure always terminates and always finds the shortest vector, and in the plane that is a theorem rather than a hope.
11 essays call
descriptions. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every
call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member
of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.
Every one of this site's 522 essays names its parameters at the
call site, which the standard pass of 2026-08-09 established and param-floor
holds.
Where it is called
Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.
One crystal, and sixteen coordinate lists
Two structure reports can disagree in every number and describe the same arrangement of atoms, because a space group does not fix its own origin or its own axes. How many genuinely different lists there are is the index of the group in its Euclidean normaliser — a number, computable, and the thing a structural database has to divide out before it can say two entries are the same compound.
The shortest vector, and where it stops being easy
Two moves find the shortest vector of a plane lattice, and they always terminate. A crystal never needs more, because a crystal's lattice has two or three dimensions. In general the same question is NP-hard, the best polynomial procedure returns an answer that may be exponentially too long, and an entire branch of cryptography is built on the gap.
What a molecule gives up to sit in a crystal
A molecule brings its own symmetry. A crystal offers sites with symmetries of their own, and the two have to be compatible — the site's symmetry must be a subgroup of the molecule's. So a molecule may always keep more than its site offers, and a molecule with a five-fold axis may sit only where the crystal offers nothing at all.
A cell from a bag of spots
A single-crystal experiment returns a list of directions with no labels on them. Recovering the cell is recovering the lattice those directions generate, and the whole of it is take differences, reduce, read the answer. What no quantity of data settles is whether the lattice found is the true one or a sublattice of it.
How many orientations a disorder needs
A molecule at a site with more symmetry than it has resolves the contradiction by occupying several orientations at once. How many is not fitted: it is the index of the molecule's symmetry in the site's, so the occupancy is the reciprocal of a whole number — and one site in the census refuses a divisor of its own order.
The occupancy does not name the disorder
A molecule disordered on a special position takes a number of orientations fixed by a group index, and its occupancy is the reciprocal. Many different disorders share one occupancy — eleven at a single kind of tetragonal site — and what separates them is which of the site's operations the molecule keeps, which the averaged structure records and the occupancy does not.
The molecule size that hides a disorder
Two disorder models with the same occupancy leave averaged structures that differ only in a handful of partial atoms. The difference is 20% in structure factors for a ten-atom molecule and 3% for a sixty-atom one — so the data choose between the models for a small molecule and stop choosing for a large one, and seven pairs are identical at any size.
What refinement takes back from a wrong model
Two disorder models sharing an occupancy leave averaged structures typically a sixth apart. Refine the wrong one against the right one's data and it takes back more than half of that — all of it wherever its loci contain the true ones. Yet the data still choose, even for a molecule of sixty-four atoms, because a likelihood summed over every reflection sees what no single reflection can, and the wrong model's partial atoms give it away through the size of their displacement parameters, not their shape.
Better counting, and the wrong model
A smooth error across reciprocal space, as large as the random one, hardly changes which disorder model the data choose: it enters both models' residuals and cancels from their difference. What it changes is where better data lead. With random error alone, counting harder decides more pairs correctly. With the smooth error left in, counting harder stops helping and starts deciding pairs for the model that did not make the data — at the 0.1% level, and more of them the better the counting.
A cubic site is blind to a degree-two error
A smooth scale error left uncorrected made perfect counting choose the wrong disorder model for eight of ninety pairs and sizes, and the obvious way to predict which is to correlate the error with the two models' difference before refining anything. That correlation predicts none of them. What it does predict, exactly, is which pairs can never go wrong: at a cubic site a scale error of degree two correlates with nothing and is absorbed by nothing, because a cubic group keeps no harmonic of degree two. A degree-four error, which it keeps one of, reaches the cubic site at once.
The wrong model moves too far for first order
Which disorder models a smooth error will turn the wrong way was left as a calculation to make before any data exist: project the error onto the directions each refinement's parameters can move. Made, it gets the sign of the verdict right in seventy-seven of eighty-five cases, catches four of the eight wrong verdicts and raises four false alarms. Every case it gets wrong is either a near-tie or a refinement that absorbed more than twice, or less than half, of what its first-order directions allow.