assertThat(transformation.transform(x1)).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(y1);
    assertThat(transformation.transform(x1 + xDelta)).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(y1 + yDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse().transform(y1)).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(x1);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse().transform(y1 + yDelta))
        .isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR)
        .of(x1 + xDelta);

    assertThat(transformation.transform(x1)).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(y1);
    assertThat(transformation.transform(x1 + xDelta)).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(y1 + yDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse().transform(y1)).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(x1);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse().transform(y1 + yDelta))
        .isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR)
        .of(x1 + xDelta);

    /*
     * For an explanation of the basic principle behind this check, see
     * https://stackoverflow.com/a/35754308/28465
     *
     * In that explanation's notation, our `overlap` check would be `x1 < y2 && y1 < x2`. We've
     * flipped one part of the check so that we're using "less than" in both cases (rather than a
     * mix of "less than" and "greater than"). We've also switched to "strictly less than" rather