1 / 39

390 likes | 492 Views

Solving Linear Programs. LP Standard Form. Max Z = c 1 x 1 + c 2 x 2 + … + c n x n Subject to (s.t.) a 11 x 1 + a 12 x 2 + … + a 1n x n b 1 a 21 x 1 + a 22 x 2 + … + a 2n x n b 2 … a m1 x 1 + a m2 x 2 + … + a mn x n b m x 1 0, x 2 0, …, x n 0.

Download Presentation
## Solving Linear Programs

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**LP Standard Form**Max Z = c1x1 + c2x2 + … + cnxn Subject to (s.t.) a11x1 + a12x2 + … + a1nxnb1 a21x1 + a22x2 + … + a2nxnb2 … am1x1 + am2x2 + … + amnxnbm x1 0, x2 0, …, xn 0 Formally: Max Z = cj xj s.t. aij xjbj i = 1, … , m xj 0 j = 1, … , m**Interior Point Solution**• Feasible? Yes • Optimal? Never Geometric concepts in LP Corner Point solution CPF:Corner Point Feasible solution polytope X We search the optimal solution among the CPF points!!**Product Mix Example**Product Mix LP. A potter produces two products, a pitcher and a bowl. It takes about 1 hour to produce a bowl and requires 4 pounds of clay. A pitcher takes about 2 hours and consumes 3 pounds of clay. The profit on a bowl is $40 and $50 on a pitcher. She works 40 hours weekly, has 120 pounds of clay available each week, and wants more profits. Max Z = 40x + 50y profits s.t. 1x + 2y 40 hours 4x + 3y 120 clay x, y 0 non-negativity**Standard & Augmented Forms**Standard Form Max Z = 40x1+ 50x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2 40 4x1 + 3x2 120 x1 , x2 0 Augmented Form Max Z = 40x1+ 50x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1= 40 4x1 + 3x2 + s2= 120 x1 , x2 , s1 , s2 0 s1 and s2 are called slack variables**x2**40 20 x1 30 40 Geometric Representation Max Z = 40x1+ 50x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 40 4x1 + 3x2+ s2= 120 x1 = 0 x2= 0 s1 = 40 s2= 120 Z = 0 24,8**x2**40 20 ? x1 30 40 Geometric Representation Max Z = 40x1+ 50x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 40 4x1 + 3x2+ s2 = 120 x1 = 0 x2=20 s1 = 0 s2=60 Z = 1,000 Z = 40x1 + 50(40-x1-s1)/2 = 1000+15x1-25s1**x2**40 20 x1 30 40 Geometric Representation Max Z = 40x1+ 50x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 40 4x1+ 3x2+ s2 = 120 x1 = 24 x2= 8 s1 = 0 s2= 0 Z = 1,360**Finite Number of CPF Solutions**We have m+n variables, and m constraints. Each Corner-point solution is identified by m basic variables, setting the other m variables to 0. Hence the number of corner-point solutions: Example:m=50 constraints, n=100 decision variables Greater than thenumber of atoms in Universe!**Algebraic Representation**Max Z = 40x1+ 50x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 40 4x1 + 3x2+ s2 = 120 • 2 equations in 4 unknowns • Multiple solutions (4 feasible) • “Simplex Method”: guided search to move to optimal solution**Algebraic Representation**Max Z = 3x1 + 5x2 s.t. x1+ x3 = 4 2x2 + x4 = 12 3x1 + 2x2 + x5 = 18 xi ≥ 0 • Initialization: start at any CPF solution • Iterative step: move to “better” adjacent CPF until optimum is reached • Extensive use of Gaussian elimination**Gaussian elimination**Eliminating a variable from all but one equation. We do this for each “entering basic variable”, a variable that was non-basic in the current iteration and we want it to be basic in the next iteration Let xk be this variable. The Gaussian transformation is: a‘ij = aij – ( aik amj / amk ) The element amkis called the PIVOT - aijaik amjamk x /**Simplex Method - Algebraic Representation**Z - 3x1- 5x2 = 0 x1 + x3 = 4 2x2 + x4 = 12 3x1 + 2x2 + x5 = 18 xi ≥ 0. Base solution for startup: x3, x4 and x5 • First iteration • x2 entering: coeff = -5 the most negative • - x4 leaving: 12/2 = 6 the least positive ratio of RHS/coeff • - We apply Gaussian elimination with the indicated pivot • Z - 3x1+ 2.5x4 = 30 • x1 + x3 = 4 • x2 + 0.5x4 = 6 • 3x1 - x4 + x5 = 6**Simplex Method - Algebraic Representation**Z - 3x1+ 2.5x4 = 30 x1 + x3 = 4 x2 + 0.5x4 = 6 3x1 - x4 + x5 = 6 • Second iteration • x1 entering: coeff = -3 the most negative • - x5 leaving: 6/3 = 2 the least positive ratio of RHS/coeff • Z + 1.5x4 + x5= 36 • x3 + 1/3x4 - 1/3x5 = 2 • x2 + 0.5x4 = 6 • x1 -1/3 x4 +1/3 x5 = 2 • Optimum, and no degeneracy!**Theory of the Simplex Method**• The optimal solution of an LP must be a corner-point feasible (CPF) solution • If there are alternate optima, then at least two must be adjacent CPF solutions • There are a finite number of CPF solutions • A CPF solution is optimal if there are no other adjacent CPF solutions that are better (Convexity of the Feasible region)**X**The case of Minimization Equality Constraints Not Feasible!**3**X 2 (2,1) 3 4 Equality Constraints Max Z = 2x1+ 3x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2 4 x1 + x2= 3 x1 , x2 0 Note: x1 = x2= 0 is notfeasible How to achieve feasibility?**M is a VERY**big number Big M Method Strategy: Start feasible, then drive artificial variables from the basis with M Max Z = 2x1+ 3x2 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2 4 x1 + x2= 3 x1 , x2 0 Max Z = 2x1+ 3x2 - M a1 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 4 x1 + x2+ a1 = 3 x1 , x2 , s1, a1 0 Add artificial variable a1 Note: x1 = x2= 0 is nowfeasible**Big M Augmented Form**Max Z = 2x1+ 3x2 –M a1 = 0 s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 4 x1 + x2+ a1 = 3 x1 , x2 , s1, a1 0 The term (–Ma1)in the expression of Z forces a1 = 0 in the optimal solution.**Big M Augmented Form**Max Z = 2x1+ 3x2 –M a1 s.t. x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 4 x1 + x2+ a1 = 3 x1 , x2 , s1, a1 0 We eliminate the basic variables from Z: Z - 2x1 - 3x2 + M a1 = 0 Mx1 + Mx2+ Ma1 - 3M = 0 ___________________________ Z - (M+2)x1- (M+3)x2 + 3M = 0**Big M Tableau**Initial Solution x1 = 0 x2=0 s1 =4 a1 = 3 Max Z = (M+2)x1+ (M+3)x2 = 3M s.t. 1x1+ 2x2+ s1 = 4 x1 + x2+ a1 = 3 x1 , x2 , s1, a1 0**“Greater Than” Constraints**Max Z = 2x1 + 5x2 + 3x3 s.t. 1x1– 2x2 + x3 20 2x1 + 4x2 + x3 = 50 x1 , x2 , x3 0 Subtract slack variableto create equality 1x1– 2x2+ x3 – s1= 20 Add artificial variablefor equality… 1x1– 2x2+ x3 – s1+ a1= 20**“Greater-Than”, use Big M**Max Z = x1+ 2x2 + 2x3 – Ma1 – Ma2 = 0 s.t. 1x1– 2x2+ x3 – s1+ a1= 20 2x1 + 4x2+ x3+ + a2 = 50 x1 , x2,x3,s1 ,a1,a2 0 Tableau with reduced objective function:**Negative RHS’s**0.4x1– 0.3x2 – 10 Is exactly equivalent to Multiply by –1 – 0.4x1+ 0.3x2 10**Minimization Problems**Min Z = 0.4x1+ 0.3x2 Is exactly equivalent to Multiply by –1 Max Z = – 0.4x1– 0.3x2**Decision variables with unconstrained sign**When xj is allowed to be any value (+ or –) Substitute xj by 2 new variables: xj+ = max(0, xj ) (the “positive component” of xj) xj- = max(0, -xj ) (the “negative component” of xj) We now have: xj = xj+– xj – xj+ , xj – 0 The success of this method is due to the fact that in any CPF, at least one of these 2 variables is out of base (null)**Example**Max Z = 3x1 + 2x2 + x3 s.t. x1 + x2 + x3 = 5 2x1 + x2 + x4 = 6 x1 , x2 , x4 0 x3 any sign Let x3+ = max(0, x3) (the “positive component” of x3) Let x3- = max(0, -x3) (the “negative component” of x3) Max Z = 3x1 + 2x2 + x3+ - x3- subject to x1 + x2 + x3+ - x3- = 5 2x1 + x2 + x4 = 6 Now all variables are positive and we have a standard LP.**Expressions with absolute value**When the problem contains expressions with absolute value, such as |3xa + + 2xb- 3 | Let u = expression u+ = max(0, u) (the “positive component” of u) u- = max(0, -u) (the “negative component” of u) We now have: u= u+ - u– and |u| = u+ + u– The success of this method is due to the fact that in any CPF, at least one of these 2 variables is out of base (null)**Example**Max Z = 3x1 + 2x2 +|3x1 + 2x2+ 2| s.t. x1 + x2 + x3 = 5 2x1 + x2 + x4 = 6 xi 0 Let u = 3x1 + 2x2 + 2 Let u+ = max(0, u) (the “positive component” of u) Let u- = max(0, -u) (the “negative component” of u) Max Z = 3x1 + 2x2 + u+ + u- subject to x1 + x2 + x3 = 5 2x1 + x2 + x4 = 6 -3x1 - 2x2 + u+ - u-= 2 We added the last expression to force the initial definition of u. Now all variables are positive and we have a standard LP.**Maximize the Minimum**When the economic function has the shape of maximizing the minimum of several expressions, such as Maximize Min(3x1 + 2x2 , x1 - 2x3 ) Maximize z = u s.t. u ≤ 3x1 + 2x2 u ≤ x1 - 2x3 uis unconstrained in sign**LP Special Cases**• Unbounded LPs • Unfeasible LPs • Alternate Optima**Unbounded Solutions**• Pivot cell is zero • Can bring in unlimited x2 • Z increases without limit! • LP is “unbounded” 40/0= 120/0=**No Feasible Solutions**An LP is infeasible if an artificial variableremains basic in the optimal solution**Alternate Optima**There is alternate optima if in the final tableau, the coefficient of Z for a non-basic variable is Zero**x2**40 20 x1 30 40 Interior Point Solution Approach • Starts at feasible point • Moves through interior of feasible region • Always improves objective function • Theoretical interest

More Related