Crystallography & Symmetry
patterns derived from their groups
Generator

Reducing a basis

Reducing a basis
Reducing a basis. An awkward basis and the reduced one Gauss's algorithm returns. Both describe the same lattice — the change of basis has determinant one — and the reduced pair is the shortest vector together with the shortest independent of it, checked against an exhaustive search.

An awkward basis and the reduced one Gauss's algorithm returns. Both describe the same lattice — the change of basis has determinant one — and the reduced pair is the shortest vector together with the shortest independent of it, checked against an exhaustive search.

8 essays call reduction. 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 393 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.

Reducing a basis. An awkward basis and the reduced one Gauss's algorithm returns. Both describe the same lattice — the change of basis has determinant one — and the reduced pair is the shortest vector together with the shortest independent of it, checked against an exhaustive search. Lattices

Reduction, and the shortest basis

Every lattice has infinitely many bases and no arithmetic picks a preferred one — until a rule is imposed. Reduction is that rule, it terminates in a handful of steps, and it is what lets a database decide whether two reported crystals are the same crystal.

 The Wigner–Seitz cell of the hexagonal lattice. Every point closer to the central lattice point than to any other. The faint lines run to the 6 neighbours whose perpendicular bisectors bound the region; every other lattice point is cut off by one of them. The cell has exactly the area of a unit cell — asserted while the figure is drawn, against √det G computed from the metric — and it carries all 12 of the lattice's symmetries, which a conventional cell need not. Nothing was chosen to build it: no basis, no axes, no convention. Two people who agree about the lattice cannot disagree about this cell. Lattices

The cell nobody chose

Every unit cell on this site is a convention, and one construction escapes the warning entirely: the region of the plane closer to one lattice point than to any other. It needs no basis, no axes and no rule — and its combinatorics are decided in integers, with the square roots confined to drawing it.

 Six integers that do not depend on the description. The same monoclinic lattice written in 4 different bases, each obtained from the last by an integer matrix of determinant one, and each reduced by Niggli's algorithm. Every one of them gives the same six integers — the squared lengths and twice the dot products of the reduced basis. That is what makes the reduced form a fingerprint of the lattice: two cells with no number in common are the same lattice exactly when their reduced forms agree, and the comparison has no tolerance in it. Lattices

The cell that settles the argument

Two determinations of one compound can report cells that share no number and describe the same lattice. Reduction is the procedure that decides — six integers that depend on the lattice and not on anybody's choice of axes, and that agree exactly when the lattices do.

 In the plane, the lengths do name the lattice. Every reduced binary form with coefficients up to 20 — 1750 lattices — with its theta series computed to 120 terms. No two of them agree. That is Schiemann's theorem for binary forms, which says the theta series determines the lattice in two dimensions and in three, confirmed here as far as the search reaches rather than proved. The closest pair is worth the space: two lattices whose shortest vectors both have squared length twenty agree for 38 terms — because neither has any vector before then — and part at the next one. Lattices

The lengths do not name the lattice

Seventeen hundred plane lattices, every one with a theta series shared with no other — the lengths determine the lattice, and an exhaustive search says so. In sixteen dimensions two different lattices have identical counts at every distance, and the example is sixty years old.

 The region, and its copies. Words in S and T up to length 4, each carrying the region somewhere else. The copies do not overlap and they do not leave gaps: the upper half-plane is tiled by them, one copy per change of basis. That is the whole content of the claim that reduction picks a canonical basis — every basis of every lattice is in exactly one copy, and reduction is the walk back to the shaded one. Lattices

Two moves reach every basis

A lattice has infinitely many bases and reduction picks one. Why it can is a fact about a group with two generators and two relations — and the fundamental region tiles the plane with its own copies, one per basis, which is what makes the walk home finite.

 (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. Lattices

The shortest vector, and where it stops being easy

Two moves find the shortest vector of a plane lattice, and they always terminate. Nothing on this site has ever needed more, because every lattice here 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.

 A lattice placed in the region, and its distance to each special shape. The modular region, with the two special points marked — the square lattice at the top of the arc and the hexagonal one at its corner — and a third lattice placed by reducing its form. The distances are hyperbolic rather than Euclidean, and the choice is forced rather than aesthetic: a distance between lattice shapes has to be unchanged by every change of basis, and the hyperbolic metric is the one defined by being invariant under exactly that group. Writing the same lattice down on three other bases and measuring again gives the same two numbers to the last digit. Lattices

How far one lattice is from another

A crystal that is nearly hexagonal twins where an exactly hexagonal one would not, and 'nearly' does real work in that sentence. Giving it a number needs a distance that no change of basis can move — which forces the geometry to be hyperbolic rather than flat.

 The whole space of plane lattices, and its corner. Every plane lattice appears exactly once in this picture. Scaling changes no density, so the leading coefficient is fixed at one; reduction then confines the other two to 0 ≤ b ≤ 1 ≤ c, and every lattice has exactly one reduced form. The curves are the levels of constant density, which are parabolas — a density d needs 4c − b² to equal (π/2d)². They crowd toward the corner b = c = 1, which is the hexagonal lattice at π/√12 ≈ 0.9069; the square lattice sits on the left edge at π/4 ≈ 0.7854. The picture is a search over a region rather than over a list, which is what makes the answer a decision: there is nowhere else for a lattice to be. Symmetry at work

The densest lattice in the plane

Which arrangement of equal discs covers the most floor is a question about infinitely many lattices, and reduction turns it into a question about a two-parameter region with a corner. The answer is at the corner, and the argument finishes.

The whole library · All essays