Modifying U=mxn SVD Algorithm to U=mxm Algorithm I have painstakingly ported this Python source "svd.py" to C++.  I confirm it works for the example it comes with.  While testing another example (this one, from Wikipedia), the assert statement trips because $m < n$.
I find this somewhat of a curious constraint.  It seems to fail mainly because the matrix $U$ (named $u$ in the source) is initialized as an $m \times n$ matrix (as opposed to the $m \times m$ matrix it is in the definition of a SVD).  It's pretty simple to initialize $U$ instead to an $m \times m$ matrix (and, say, pad with zeroes), but this causes some of the code to break for some other examples.
Why would $U$ be an $m \times n$ matrix, and how can I fix the algorithm to work on all sizes of matrices?
EDIT: If the SVD is $M=U_1\Sigma_1 V_1^*$, I came up with the idea of computing the SVD of $M^*$ to get $M^*=V_1\Sigma_1^*U_1^*=U_2\Sigma_2 V_2^*$.  From here, I use that substitution to get the desired $U_1$, $\Sigma_1$, $V_1$ out.  This produces a result that multiplies back through correctly, but is it a proper SVD?

*

*Sounds like the routine is built for overdetermined systems. The standard theoretical trick is to work with $\mathbf{A}^{*}$ in lieu of $\mathbf{A}$. An underdetermined system is going to contend with infinite solution space.

*Given a matrix of rank $\rho$,
$$
 \mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{C}^{m\times n}_{\rho},
$$
the singular value decomposition is
$$
\begin{align}
  \mathbf{A} &=
  \mathbf{U} \, \Sigma \, \mathbf{V}^{*} \\
%
 &=
% U 
  \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
     \color{blue}{\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{R}}} & \color{red}{\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{N}}}
  \end{array} \right]  
% Sigma
  \left[ \begin{array}{cccccc}
     \sigma_{1} & 0 & \dots &  &   & \dots &  0 \\
     0 & \sigma_{2}  \\
     \vdots && \ddots \\
       & & & \sigma_{k} \\
       & & & & 0 & \\
     \vdots &&&&&\ddots \\
     0 & & &   &   &  & 0 \\
  \end{array} \right]
% V 
  \left[ \begin{array}{c}
     \color{blue}{\mathbf{V}_{\mathcal{R}}}^{*} \\ 
     \color{red}{\mathbf{V}_{\mathcal{N}}}^{*}
  \end{array} \right]  \\
%
  & =
% U
   \left[ \begin{array}{cccccccc}
    \color{blue}{u_{1}} & \dots & \color{blue}{u_{k}} & \color{red}{u_{k+1}} & \dots & \color{red}{u_{n}}
  \end{array} \right]
% Sigma
  \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
     \mathbf{S}_{k\times k} & \mathbf{0} \\
     \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{0} 
  \end{array} \right]
% V
   \left[ \begin{array}{c}
    \color{blue}{v_{1}^{*}} \\ 
    \vdots \\
    \color{blue}{v_{k}^{*}} \\
    \color{red}{v_{k+1}^{*}} \\
    \vdots \\ 
    \color{red}{v_{n}^{*}}
  \end{array} \right]
%
\end{align}
$$
Your problem may correspond to $\rho = n$.

*The least squares solution highlights the uniqueness issue. Given the solution vector $x\in\mathbb{C}^{n}$, and the data vectors $b \in \mathbb{C}^{m}$, and the restriction that $b\notin \color{red}{\mathcal{N}\left( \mathbf{A}\right)}$, the least squares solution to $\mathbf{A}x = b$ is
$$
x_{LS} = \color{blue}{\mathbf{A}^{\dagger} b} + 
 \color{red}{\left( \mathbf{I}_{n} - \mathbf{A}^{\dagger}\mathbf{A} \right) y}, \quad y\in\mathbb{C}^{n}
$$
If the nullspace $\color{red}{\mathcal{N}\left( \mathbf{A}^{*}\right)}$ is trivial, then $\mathbf{A}^{\dagger}\mathbf{A} =\mathbf{I}_n$ and the solution is unique.

*So yes, we can build the Hermitian conjugate with SVD components. Using the thin form
$$
  \mathbf{A} = 
\color{blue}{\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{R}}}  \mathbf{S} \, \color{blue}{\mathbf{V}_{\mathcal{R}}}^{*} 
%
\qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
%
\mathbf{A}^{*} = 
  \color{blue}{\mathbf{V}_{\mathcal{R}}}^{*}  \mathbf{S} \, \color{blue}{\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{R}}}
$$
