Introduction to mathematical programming
4th Edition
ISBN: 9780534359645
Author: Jeffrey B. Goldberg
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Expert Solution & Answer
Chapter 4.4, Problem 6P
Explanation of Solution
Linear
- It is given that Ad = 0 and d>=0 and x is feasible and c>=0, x+cd>=0. Also A(x+cd)=Ax=b. Therefore for all c>=0, x+cd is feasible.
- If Ad =0 and d>=0 are not both true, then d is not a direction of unboundedness.
- This is equivalent to showing that if d is a direction of unboundedness then both Ad =0 and d>=0 must be true...
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Find an instance or a family of instances of the Capacitated Facility Location problem in which the redundant constraints
i = 1,..., m, j= 1,...,n
are improving the linear programming relaxation of the problem.
In each case below, show using the pumping lemma that the givenlanguage is not a CFL.e. L = {x ∈ {a, b, c}∗ | na(x) = max {nb(x), nc(x)}}
If the objective function is concave and the constraints are linear, the Solver is guaranteed to discover the global minimum (if one exists).
Is it true or false?
Chapter 4 Solutions
Introduction to mathematical programming
Ch. 4.1 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.1 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.1 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.4 - Prob. 7P
Ch. 4.5 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.5 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.5 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.5 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.5 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.5 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.5 - Prob. 7PCh. 4.6 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.6 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.6 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.6 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 7PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 8PCh. 4.7 - Prob. 9PCh. 4.8 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.8 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.8 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.8 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.8 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.8 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.10 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.10 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.10 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.10 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.10 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.11 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.11 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.11 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.11 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.11 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.11 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.12 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.12 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.12 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.12 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.12 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.12 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.13 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 6PCh. 4.14 - Prob. 7PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 7PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 8PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 9PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 10PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 11PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 12PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 13PCh. 4.16 - Prob. 14PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 1PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 2PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 3PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 4PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 5PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 7PCh. 4.17 - Prob. 8PCh. 4 - Prob. 1RPCh. 4 - Prob. 2RPCh. 4 - Prob. 3RPCh. 4 - Prob. 4RPCh. 4 - Prob. 5RPCh. 4 - Prob. 6RPCh. 4 - Prob. 7RPCh. 4 - Prob. 8RPCh. 4 - Prob. 9RPCh. 4 - Prob. 10RPCh. 4 - Prob. 12RPCh. 4 - Prob. 13RPCh. 4 - Prob. 14RPCh. 4 - Prob. 16RPCh. 4 - Prob. 17RPCh. 4 - Prob. 18RPCh. 4 - Prob. 19RPCh. 4 - Prob. 20RPCh. 4 - Prob. 21RPCh. 4 - Prob. 22RPCh. 4 - Prob. 23RPCh. 4 - Prob. 24RPCh. 4 - Prob. 26RPCh. 4 - Prob. 27RPCh. 4 - Prob. 28RP
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- 10. Let W be a wff. If no free occurrence of the variable x in W (x) is in the scope of a quantifier that binds a variable in t, then we say the term t is... (A) out of bounds (C) bound to x (B) free to replace x in W (x) (D) a solitary termarrow_forward8. (a) Show that a = Vxa if x is not free in a. (b) Show that (a) need not hold if x is free in a.arrow_forward8) Determine whether the rule describes a function with the given domain and codomain. f: N→ N, where f(n) = √n h: R → R, where h(x)=√xarrow_forward
- A system is said to be completely observable if there exists an unconstrained control u(t) that can transfer any initial state x(to) to any other desired location x(t) in a finite time to T. b. Investigate the observability of the system below. (X1 X2, -2 (X1 y = [1 2] Knowing that X = Ax + Bu and y= Cx.arrow_forwardDetecting Type-B Arbitrage with (ADLP) - Practice For type-B arbitrage the following conditions neèd to be satisfied: Po(y) = E söx; s0, (i) i=0 ES{(w; )x; > 0, j = 1, 2, ..., m, (ii) i=0 in Es{(w;)x; > 0 for at least one index j (ii) i=0 We can find such an investment x (if one exists) by solving ОРТ min - j=1 i=0 subject to S;(w;)x; > 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , m. (ADLP) i=0 in Sóx; <0 i=0 Define OPT = -o if the problem is unboundedarrow_forwardWrite algorithm for the continually growing set of linear approximations of the constraints simply makes a better and better outer approximation of the original nonlinear constraints.arrow_forward
- Consider the elliptic curve group based on the equation y? = x* + ax + b mod p where a = 491, b = 1150, and p = 1319. According to Hasse's theorem, what are the minimum and maximum number of elements this group might have? < #E<arrow_forwardArc consistency in constrained satisfaction problems Suppose that we have three variables X1, X2 and X3, which are defined on the same domain of {1, 2, 3}. Two binary constraints for these three variables are defined according to the following: 1. Is X1 arc-consistent with respect to X2? And is X1 arc-consistent with respect to X3? and why? In addition, is X3 arc-consistent with respect X1 if the constraints between R1 and R3 are undirected (i.e., R31 is defined as {(X3, X1), [(2, 1),(1, 2),(1, 3),(3, 3)]} that switches the element order of every two-tuple of R13)? and why? 2. Suppose that, after some inference, the domain of X1 is reduced as {2, 3} and the constrains in R12 and R13 for X1 = 1 are removed accordingly. To be more specific, (1, 2) is removed from R13 due to reducing the domain of X1. Now is X1 still arc-consistent with respect to X2? And is X1 arc-consistent with respect to X3? and why? In addition, is X3 still arc-consistent with respect X1 if the constraints between…arrow_forwardFor the graph given, find κ(G), λ(G), and minv∈V deg(v), and determine which of the two inequal- ities in κ(G) ≤ λ(G) ≤ minv∈V deg(v) are strict.arrow_forward
- If the only information given about variable x2 in an LP is x2 ≥3, what modifications need to be made to the LP to put it in Canonical Inequality Form? You may assume that the rest of the problem is already in Canonical Inequality Form. Be specific and show your work.arrow_forward(a) (i) Draw a set of 2-dimensional linearly separable data points with binary labels, and clearly indicate the decision boundary found by a maximum-margin classifier, and at least one decision boundary that does not obtain a maximum margin but still represents a perfect classifier. (ii) Explain how it's possible to obtain such a non-maximum margin solution, using the concept of a loss function.arrow_forwardSolver is guaranteed to find the global minimum (if it exists) if the objective function is concave and the Constraints are linear. True or Falsearrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Operations Research : Applications and AlgorithmsComputer ScienceISBN:9780534380588Author:Wayne L. WinstonPublisher:Brooks Cole
Operations Research : Applications and Algorithms
Computer Science
ISBN:9780534380588
Author:Wayne L. Winston
Publisher:Brooks Cole