Primal-Dual basic (feasible) solution?
I have been struggling with the following questions, especially the first two:
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a feasible solution?
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a basic solution?
- Find the optimal solution $[y_1*, y_2*]^T$.
The following primal is given:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 leq 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 leq 8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
If I am not mistaken, this should be equivalent to:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & -2x_1 +4x_2 - x_3 +8x_4 geq -22 \
& -x_1 - x_2 - 3x_3 - x_4 geq -8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
Which should corresponds to the following dual:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{max } & w = -22y_1 -8y_2\
text{s.t. } & -2y_1 - y_2 leq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 leq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 leq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 leq -14\
& y_1, y_2 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
My thoughts:
- It is not a feasible solution, since for $y_1 = 2, y_2 = 1$ we have
$$begin{array}{cc}
& -2y_1 - y_2 = -5 neq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 = 7 neq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 = -5neq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 = 15neq -14\
end{array}$$ - By that same argument, it is not a basic solution, since there is no basis $B$ of row vectors in $A^T$ such that $By_B = c$.
- I assume this is simply done by the Dual simplex algorithm, starting with a basic solution. But it feel like I did something incorrect at (1) and (2) and I actually need to use $[2,1]$ for this.
I am familiar with complementary slackness, but I don't think this is useful here?
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
|
show 2 more comments
I have been struggling with the following questions, especially the first two:
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a feasible solution?
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a basic solution?
- Find the optimal solution $[y_1*, y_2*]^T$.
The following primal is given:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 leq 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 leq 8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
If I am not mistaken, this should be equivalent to:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & -2x_1 +4x_2 - x_3 +8x_4 geq -22 \
& -x_1 - x_2 - 3x_3 - x_4 geq -8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
Which should corresponds to the following dual:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{max } & w = -22y_1 -8y_2\
text{s.t. } & -2y_1 - y_2 leq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 leq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 leq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 leq -14\
& y_1, y_2 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
My thoughts:
- It is not a feasible solution, since for $y_1 = 2, y_2 = 1$ we have
$$begin{array}{cc}
& -2y_1 - y_2 = -5 neq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 = 7 neq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 = -5neq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 = 15neq -14\
end{array}$$ - By that same argument, it is not a basic solution, since there is no basis $B$ of row vectors in $A^T$ such that $By_B = c$.
- I assume this is simply done by the Dual simplex algorithm, starting with a basic solution. But it feel like I did something incorrect at (1) and (2) and I actually need to use $[2,1]$ for this.
I am familiar with complementary slackness, but I don't think this is useful here?
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
1
Note that you have inequalities in your dual problem. Thus only the second and the fourth constraint are not fullfilled. But this alone is sufficient that (2,1) is not a feasible solution.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:44
So a basic solution, that is not necessarily feasible, has to satisfy all constraints of a LP? Does it also have to satisfy the non-negativity constraint? So if for example $[2,-1]^T$ satisfies the first four inequalities, then it's still not a basic solution because $y_2 < 0$?
– user260710
Nov 20 '16 at 4:51
A basic solution is a feasible solution. Because it is a feasibille solution it has to fullfill all constraints. $(2,-1)^T$ is not a basic (feasible) solution, because it does not fullfill the non-negativity condition.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:58
If there is no typo number 2 can be answered immediately.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 5:03
@callculus I searced "basic infeasible solution", and found "basic infeasible solution" on P.9 of this OR notes $unicode{x1F517}$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Feb 20 '17 at 10:24
|
show 2 more comments
I have been struggling with the following questions, especially the first two:
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a feasible solution?
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a basic solution?
- Find the optimal solution $[y_1*, y_2*]^T$.
The following primal is given:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 leq 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 leq 8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
If I am not mistaken, this should be equivalent to:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & -2x_1 +4x_2 - x_3 +8x_4 geq -22 \
& -x_1 - x_2 - 3x_3 - x_4 geq -8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
Which should corresponds to the following dual:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{max } & w = -22y_1 -8y_2\
text{s.t. } & -2y_1 - y_2 leq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 leq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 leq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 leq -14\
& y_1, y_2 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
My thoughts:
- It is not a feasible solution, since for $y_1 = 2, y_2 = 1$ we have
$$begin{array}{cc}
& -2y_1 - y_2 = -5 neq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 = 7 neq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 = -5neq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 = 15neq -14\
end{array}$$ - By that same argument, it is not a basic solution, since there is no basis $B$ of row vectors in $A^T$ such that $By_B = c$.
- I assume this is simply done by the Dual simplex algorithm, starting with a basic solution. But it feel like I did something incorrect at (1) and (2) and I actually need to use $[2,1]$ for this.
I am familiar with complementary slackness, but I don't think this is useful here?
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
I have been struggling with the following questions, especially the first two:
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a feasible solution?
- Is the solution $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ of the dual a basic solution?
- Find the optimal solution $[y_1*, y_2*]^T$.
The following primal is given:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 leq 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 leq 8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
If I am not mistaken, this should be equivalent to:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{min } & z = -4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4\
text{s.t. } & -2x_1 +4x_2 - x_3 +8x_4 geq -22 \
& -x_1 - x_2 - 3x_3 - x_4 geq -8 \
& x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
Which should corresponds to the following dual:
$$begin{array}{cc}
text{max } & w = -22y_1 -8y_2\
text{s.t. } & -2y_1 - y_2 leq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 leq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 leq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 leq -14\
& y_1, y_2 geq 0 \
end{array}$$
My thoughts:
- It is not a feasible solution, since for $y_1 = 2, y_2 = 1$ we have
$$begin{array}{cc}
& -2y_1 - y_2 = -5 neq -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 = 7 neq -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 = -5neq 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 = 15neq -14\
end{array}$$ - By that same argument, it is not a basic solution, since there is no basis $B$ of row vectors in $A^T$ such that $By_B = c$.
- I assume this is simply done by the Dual simplex algorithm, starting with a basic solution. But it feel like I did something incorrect at (1) and (2) and I actually need to use $[2,1]$ for this.
I am familiar with complementary slackness, but I don't think this is useful here?
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
optimization convex-optimization linear-programming
edited Feb 20 '17 at 10:10
GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
12.8k72445
12.8k72445
asked Nov 20 '16 at 4:04
user260710user260710
1008
1008
1
Note that you have inequalities in your dual problem. Thus only the second and the fourth constraint are not fullfilled. But this alone is sufficient that (2,1) is not a feasible solution.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:44
So a basic solution, that is not necessarily feasible, has to satisfy all constraints of a LP? Does it also have to satisfy the non-negativity constraint? So if for example $[2,-1]^T$ satisfies the first four inequalities, then it's still not a basic solution because $y_2 < 0$?
– user260710
Nov 20 '16 at 4:51
A basic solution is a feasible solution. Because it is a feasibille solution it has to fullfill all constraints. $(2,-1)^T$ is not a basic (feasible) solution, because it does not fullfill the non-negativity condition.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:58
If there is no typo number 2 can be answered immediately.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 5:03
@callculus I searced "basic infeasible solution", and found "basic infeasible solution" on P.9 of this OR notes $unicode{x1F517}$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Feb 20 '17 at 10:24
|
show 2 more comments
1
Note that you have inequalities in your dual problem. Thus only the second and the fourth constraint are not fullfilled. But this alone is sufficient that (2,1) is not a feasible solution.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:44
So a basic solution, that is not necessarily feasible, has to satisfy all constraints of a LP? Does it also have to satisfy the non-negativity constraint? So if for example $[2,-1]^T$ satisfies the first four inequalities, then it's still not a basic solution because $y_2 < 0$?
– user260710
Nov 20 '16 at 4:51
A basic solution is a feasible solution. Because it is a feasibille solution it has to fullfill all constraints. $(2,-1)^T$ is not a basic (feasible) solution, because it does not fullfill the non-negativity condition.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:58
If there is no typo number 2 can be answered immediately.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 5:03
@callculus I searced "basic infeasible solution", and found "basic infeasible solution" on P.9 of this OR notes $unicode{x1F517}$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Feb 20 '17 at 10:24
1
1
Note that you have inequalities in your dual problem. Thus only the second and the fourth constraint are not fullfilled. But this alone is sufficient that (2,1) is not a feasible solution.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:44
Note that you have inequalities in your dual problem. Thus only the second and the fourth constraint are not fullfilled. But this alone is sufficient that (2,1) is not a feasible solution.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:44
So a basic solution, that is not necessarily feasible, has to satisfy all constraints of a LP? Does it also have to satisfy the non-negativity constraint? So if for example $[2,-1]^T$ satisfies the first four inequalities, then it's still not a basic solution because $y_2 < 0$?
– user260710
Nov 20 '16 at 4:51
So a basic solution, that is not necessarily feasible, has to satisfy all constraints of a LP? Does it also have to satisfy the non-negativity constraint? So if for example $[2,-1]^T$ satisfies the first four inequalities, then it's still not a basic solution because $y_2 < 0$?
– user260710
Nov 20 '16 at 4:51
A basic solution is a feasible solution. Because it is a feasibille solution it has to fullfill all constraints. $(2,-1)^T$ is not a basic (feasible) solution, because it does not fullfill the non-negativity condition.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:58
A basic solution is a feasible solution. Because it is a feasibille solution it has to fullfill all constraints. $(2,-1)^T$ is not a basic (feasible) solution, because it does not fullfill the non-negativity condition.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:58
If there is no typo number 2 can be answered immediately.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 5:03
If there is no typo number 2 can be answered immediately.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 5:03
@callculus I searced "basic infeasible solution", and found "basic infeasible solution" on P.9 of this OR notes $unicode{x1F517}$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Feb 20 '17 at 10:24
@callculus I searced "basic infeasible solution", and found "basic infeasible solution" on P.9 of this OR notes $unicode{x1F517}$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Feb 20 '17 at 10:24
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a feasible solution to the dual since it doesn't satisfy the first constraint $4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7$.
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a basic solution. You may say "by the same calculations", but not "by the same arguments".
begin{align}
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ infeasible} \
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 ne -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ non-basic}
end{align}
The second implication follows since we actually transform the LP into
begin{array}{lrr}
text{max} & w = -22y_1 -8y_2 &\
text{s.t.} & -2y_1 - y_2 +s_1 =& -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 +s_2 =& -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 +s_3 =& 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 +s_4 =& -14\
& y_1, y_2, s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4 geq 0
end{array}
The calculations in the question body actually shows that $s_i$'s are nonzero, so the solution $[y_1,y_2]^T$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's not a basic solution. - You have the right choice of method. To use the dual simplex method, we need a basic (infeasible) solution with the optimality satisfied. Note that feasibility and optimality are two independent concepts. It's easy to observe that in the simplex tableau, the $w$-row ($[22, 8, 0,dots,0]$) is nonnegative, so the optimality condition is satisfied. As a result, the most obvious choice for a basic variable would be $[y_1,y_2]^T=[0,0]$.
Before continuing the dual simplex method, in response to OP's comment corcerning $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2, -1]$, we have $s_1 = -4 + 2(2) + (-1) = -1 ne 0$, so $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2,-1]$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's nonbasic and infeasible. We can't use this to solve the dual.
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -4 \
s_2 & 4 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -7 \
s_3 & -1 & -3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 5 \
s_4 & 8 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -14 \ hline
& 22 & 8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \
text{ratio} & 11/4 & -8 & & & & 0 &
end{array}
Leaving variable: $s_4$, entering variable: $y_2$
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, y_2$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -10 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 10 \
s_2 & -4 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 7 \
s_3 & -25 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -3 & 47 \
y_2 & -8 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 14 \ hline
& color{blue}{86} & color{blue}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}} & -112 \
end{array}
Hence the optimal solution is $[y_1,y_2]^T = [0,14]$ with $w = -112$.
By adding slack variabes $t_1,t_2$ to the primal
begin{array}{rlr}
min z = & color{red}{-4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4} &\
text{s.t.} & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 +color{blue}{t_1} &= 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 +color{blue}{t_2} &= 8 \
& color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2} geq 0,
end{array}
we can read the solution of the primal from the simplex tableau for the dual: the optimal solution for the primal is $[color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2}]^T = [color{red}{0,0,0, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}}, color{blue}{86,0}]$.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2022182%2fprimal-dual-basic-feasible-solution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a feasible solution to the dual since it doesn't satisfy the first constraint $4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7$.
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a basic solution. You may say "by the same calculations", but not "by the same arguments".
begin{align}
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ infeasible} \
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 ne -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ non-basic}
end{align}
The second implication follows since we actually transform the LP into
begin{array}{lrr}
text{max} & w = -22y_1 -8y_2 &\
text{s.t.} & -2y_1 - y_2 +s_1 =& -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 +s_2 =& -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 +s_3 =& 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 +s_4 =& -14\
& y_1, y_2, s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4 geq 0
end{array}
The calculations in the question body actually shows that $s_i$'s are nonzero, so the solution $[y_1,y_2]^T$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's not a basic solution. - You have the right choice of method. To use the dual simplex method, we need a basic (infeasible) solution with the optimality satisfied. Note that feasibility and optimality are two independent concepts. It's easy to observe that in the simplex tableau, the $w$-row ($[22, 8, 0,dots,0]$) is nonnegative, so the optimality condition is satisfied. As a result, the most obvious choice for a basic variable would be $[y_1,y_2]^T=[0,0]$.
Before continuing the dual simplex method, in response to OP's comment corcerning $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2, -1]$, we have $s_1 = -4 + 2(2) + (-1) = -1 ne 0$, so $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2,-1]$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's nonbasic and infeasible. We can't use this to solve the dual.
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -4 \
s_2 & 4 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -7 \
s_3 & -1 & -3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 5 \
s_4 & 8 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -14 \ hline
& 22 & 8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \
text{ratio} & 11/4 & -8 & & & & 0 &
end{array}
Leaving variable: $s_4$, entering variable: $y_2$
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, y_2$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -10 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 10 \
s_2 & -4 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 7 \
s_3 & -25 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -3 & 47 \
y_2 & -8 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 14 \ hline
& color{blue}{86} & color{blue}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}} & -112 \
end{array}
Hence the optimal solution is $[y_1,y_2]^T = [0,14]$ with $w = -112$.
By adding slack variabes $t_1,t_2$ to the primal
begin{array}{rlr}
min z = & color{red}{-4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4} &\
text{s.t.} & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 +color{blue}{t_1} &= 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 +color{blue}{t_2} &= 8 \
& color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2} geq 0,
end{array}
we can read the solution of the primal from the simplex tableau for the dual: the optimal solution for the primal is $[color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2}]^T = [color{red}{0,0,0, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}}, color{blue}{86,0}]$.
add a comment |
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a feasible solution to the dual since it doesn't satisfy the first constraint $4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7$.
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a basic solution. You may say "by the same calculations", but not "by the same arguments".
begin{align}
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ infeasible} \
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 ne -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ non-basic}
end{align}
The second implication follows since we actually transform the LP into
begin{array}{lrr}
text{max} & w = -22y_1 -8y_2 &\
text{s.t.} & -2y_1 - y_2 +s_1 =& -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 +s_2 =& -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 +s_3 =& 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 +s_4 =& -14\
& y_1, y_2, s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4 geq 0
end{array}
The calculations in the question body actually shows that $s_i$'s are nonzero, so the solution $[y_1,y_2]^T$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's not a basic solution. - You have the right choice of method. To use the dual simplex method, we need a basic (infeasible) solution with the optimality satisfied. Note that feasibility and optimality are two independent concepts. It's easy to observe that in the simplex tableau, the $w$-row ($[22, 8, 0,dots,0]$) is nonnegative, so the optimality condition is satisfied. As a result, the most obvious choice for a basic variable would be $[y_1,y_2]^T=[0,0]$.
Before continuing the dual simplex method, in response to OP's comment corcerning $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2, -1]$, we have $s_1 = -4 + 2(2) + (-1) = -1 ne 0$, so $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2,-1]$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's nonbasic and infeasible. We can't use this to solve the dual.
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -4 \
s_2 & 4 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -7 \
s_3 & -1 & -3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 5 \
s_4 & 8 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -14 \ hline
& 22 & 8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \
text{ratio} & 11/4 & -8 & & & & 0 &
end{array}
Leaving variable: $s_4$, entering variable: $y_2$
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, y_2$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -10 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 10 \
s_2 & -4 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 7 \
s_3 & -25 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -3 & 47 \
y_2 & -8 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 14 \ hline
& color{blue}{86} & color{blue}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}} & -112 \
end{array}
Hence the optimal solution is $[y_1,y_2]^T = [0,14]$ with $w = -112$.
By adding slack variabes $t_1,t_2$ to the primal
begin{array}{rlr}
min z = & color{red}{-4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4} &\
text{s.t.} & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 +color{blue}{t_1} &= 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 +color{blue}{t_2} &= 8 \
& color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2} geq 0,
end{array}
we can read the solution of the primal from the simplex tableau for the dual: the optimal solution for the primal is $[color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2}]^T = [color{red}{0,0,0, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}}, color{blue}{86,0}]$.
add a comment |
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a feasible solution to the dual since it doesn't satisfy the first constraint $4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7$.
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a basic solution. You may say "by the same calculations", but not "by the same arguments".
begin{align}
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ infeasible} \
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 ne -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ non-basic}
end{align}
The second implication follows since we actually transform the LP into
begin{array}{lrr}
text{max} & w = -22y_1 -8y_2 &\
text{s.t.} & -2y_1 - y_2 +s_1 =& -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 +s_2 =& -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 +s_3 =& 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 +s_4 =& -14\
& y_1, y_2, s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4 geq 0
end{array}
The calculations in the question body actually shows that $s_i$'s are nonzero, so the solution $[y_1,y_2]^T$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's not a basic solution. - You have the right choice of method. To use the dual simplex method, we need a basic (infeasible) solution with the optimality satisfied. Note that feasibility and optimality are two independent concepts. It's easy to observe that in the simplex tableau, the $w$-row ($[22, 8, 0,dots,0]$) is nonnegative, so the optimality condition is satisfied. As a result, the most obvious choice for a basic variable would be $[y_1,y_2]^T=[0,0]$.
Before continuing the dual simplex method, in response to OP's comment corcerning $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2, -1]$, we have $s_1 = -4 + 2(2) + (-1) = -1 ne 0$, so $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2,-1]$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's nonbasic and infeasible. We can't use this to solve the dual.
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -4 \
s_2 & 4 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -7 \
s_3 & -1 & -3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 5 \
s_4 & 8 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -14 \ hline
& 22 & 8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \
text{ratio} & 11/4 & -8 & & & & 0 &
end{array}
Leaving variable: $s_4$, entering variable: $y_2$
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, y_2$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -10 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 10 \
s_2 & -4 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 7 \
s_3 & -25 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -3 & 47 \
y_2 & -8 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 14 \ hline
& color{blue}{86} & color{blue}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}} & -112 \
end{array}
Hence the optimal solution is $[y_1,y_2]^T = [0,14]$ with $w = -112$.
By adding slack variabes $t_1,t_2$ to the primal
begin{array}{rlr}
min z = & color{red}{-4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4} &\
text{s.t.} & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 +color{blue}{t_1} &= 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 +color{blue}{t_2} &= 8 \
& color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2} geq 0,
end{array}
we can read the solution of the primal from the simplex tableau for the dual: the optimal solution for the primal is $[color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2}]^T = [color{red}{0,0,0, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}}, color{blue}{86,0}]$.
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a feasible solution to the dual since it doesn't satisfy the first constraint $4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7$.
- $[y_1, y_2]^T = [2,1]$ is not a basic solution. You may say "by the same calculations", but not "by the same arguments".
begin{align}
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 > -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ infeasible} \
4y_1 -y_2 = 7 ne -7 &implies [y_1, y_2]^T text{ non-basic}
end{align}
The second implication follows since we actually transform the LP into
begin{array}{lrr}
text{max} & w = -22y_1 -8y_2 &\
text{s.t.} & -2y_1 - y_2 +s_1 =& -4 \
& 4y_1 -y_2 +s_2 =& -7\
&-y_1 -3y_2 +s_3 =& 5\
&8y_1 -y_2 +s_4 =& -14\
& y_1, y_2, s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4 geq 0
end{array}
The calculations in the question body actually shows that $s_i$'s are nonzero, so the solution $[y_1,y_2]^T$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's not a basic solution. - You have the right choice of method. To use the dual simplex method, we need a basic (infeasible) solution with the optimality satisfied. Note that feasibility and optimality are two independent concepts. It's easy to observe that in the simplex tableau, the $w$-row ($[22, 8, 0,dots,0]$) is nonnegative, so the optimality condition is satisfied. As a result, the most obvious choice for a basic variable would be $[y_1,y_2]^T=[0,0]$.
Before continuing the dual simplex method, in response to OP's comment corcerning $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2, -1]$, we have $s_1 = -4 + 2(2) + (-1) = -1 ne 0$, so $[y_1,y_2]^T = [2,-1]$ has more than two nonzero components, so it's nonbasic and infeasible. We can't use this to solve the dual.
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -4 \
s_2 & 4 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -7 \
s_3 & -1 & -3 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 5 \
s_4 & 8 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -14 \ hline
& 22 & 8 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \
text{ratio} & 11/4 & -8 & & & & 0 &
end{array}
Leaving variable: $s_4$, entering variable: $y_2$
Current basis: $s_1, s_2, s_3, y_2$
begin{array}{rrrrrrr|r}
& y_1 & y_2 & s_1 & s_2 & s_3 & s_4 & \ hline
s_1 & -10 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 10 \
s_2 & -4 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 7 \
s_3 & -25 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -3 & 47 \
y_2 & -8 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 14 \ hline
& color{blue}{86} & color{blue}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{0} & color{red}{bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}} & -112 \
end{array}
Hence the optimal solution is $[y_1,y_2]^T = [0,14]$ with $w = -112$.
By adding slack variabes $t_1,t_2$ to the primal
begin{array}{rlr}
min z = & color{red}{-4x_1 - 7x_2 + 5x_3 -14x_4} &\
text{s.t.} & 2x_1 -4x_2 + x_3 -8x_4 +color{blue}{t_1} &= 22 \
& x_1 + x_2 + 3x_3 + x_4 +color{blue}{t_2} &= 8 \
& color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2} geq 0,
end{array}
we can read the solution of the primal from the simplex tableau for the dual: the optimal solution for the primal is $[color{red}{x_1, x_2, x_3, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{x_4}}, color{blue}{t_1,t_2}]^T = [color{red}{0,0,0, bbox[2px, border: solid 1px]{8}}, color{blue}{86,0}]$.
edited Feb 21 '17 at 9:30
answered Feb 20 '17 at 17:12
GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
12.8k72445
12.8k72445
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2022182%2fprimal-dual-basic-feasible-solution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Note that you have inequalities in your dual problem. Thus only the second and the fourth constraint are not fullfilled. But this alone is sufficient that (2,1) is not a feasible solution.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:44
So a basic solution, that is not necessarily feasible, has to satisfy all constraints of a LP? Does it also have to satisfy the non-negativity constraint? So if for example $[2,-1]^T$ satisfies the first four inequalities, then it's still not a basic solution because $y_2 < 0$?
– user260710
Nov 20 '16 at 4:51
A basic solution is a feasible solution. Because it is a feasibille solution it has to fullfill all constraints. $(2,-1)^T$ is not a basic (feasible) solution, because it does not fullfill the non-negativity condition.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 4:58
If there is no typo number 2 can be answered immediately.
– callculus
Nov 20 '16 at 5:03
@callculus I searced "basic infeasible solution", and found "basic infeasible solution" on P.9 of this OR notes $unicode{x1F517}$
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Feb 20 '17 at 10:24