Did I mess up in this inequality?

  • Thread starter flyingpig
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Inequality
In summary: I found.In summary, the conversation is about a problem involving linear inequalities and finding a feasible solution. The conversation also delves into the concept of duality and the use of matrices to solve the problem. Ultimately, the conversation ends with a discussion on how to show that the problem is unbounded using algebraic methods.
  • #1
flyingpig
2,579
1

Homework Statement



[PLAIN]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7445/unledhpu.png



The Attempt at a Solution



I am having problems with (c), (e) but I will show yu what I did for the others first. I also I forewarn thee that we haven't learned the Simplex Algorithm yet (we might learn it at the end of the week)

(a)I did the whole inequality thing and I got

min

[tex]w = 1203y_1 + 1551y_2[/tex]

[tex]0 \geq -6y_1[/tex]
[tex]5 \geq 4y_1 + 7y_2[/tex]
[tex]14 \geq 10y_1 + 15y_2[/tex]

[tex]y_1, y_2 \leq 0[/tex]

(b), I found that y = (0,0)^t worked

(this will be useful for (e))

[tex]0 \geq 0 = -6(0)[/tex]
[tex]5 \geq 0 = 4(0) + 7(0)[/tex]
[tex]14 \geq 0 = 10(0) + 15(0)[/tex]

(c)

Here is the problem, with the first inequality

[tex]-6t + 4(100) + 10(50) = -6t + 900 \leq 1203[/tex]

[tex]-6t \leq 303[/tex]

[tex]t \geq -50.5[/tex]

This doesn't say that all t are positive, I mean okay, all positive values do work because neither the other constraint nor the objective function depend on x_1

Does it make sense to say that "Since [tex]t \geq -50.5[/tex] which therefore includes [tex]t \geq 0[/tex], hence x = (t, 100,50)^t works for all [tex]t \geq 0[/tex]"

The other constraints (if you are wondering) all work. So my question is, do I have to worry about the values [tex]-50.5 \leq t < 0[/tex]?

I excluded 0 because it works.

(d) Nothing fancy here, just z = 5(100) + 14(50) = 1200

(e) If P is feasible, there exists a feasible [tex]x = (x_1, x_2, x_3)^t[/tex].

Since I confirmed that my [tex]y = (0,0)^t[/tex] (or at least I think yu should believe me) is D-feasible, by the Weak Duality Thrm

I have the inequality

[tex]c^t \leq y^t A \leq y^t b[/tex]

However there is a problem.

My A matrix is [tex]\begin{pmatrix}
-6 & 4& 10\\
0& 7& 15
\end{pmatrix}[/tex] This is 2 by 3

And my yt is [tex]\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

How can they multiply together?

(f) need to answer (e) before

(g) I think it follows from (f)? Intuition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
flyingpig said:

Homework Statement



[PLAIN]http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7445/unledhpu.png



The Attempt at a Solution



I am having problems with (c), (e) but I will show yu what I did for the others first. I also I forewarn thee that we haven't learned the Simplex Algorithm yet (we might learn it at the end of the week)

(a)I did the whole inequality thing and I got

min

[tex]w = 1203y_1 + 1551y_2[/tex]

[tex]0 \geq -6y_1[/tex]
[tex]5 \geq 4y_1 + 7y_2[/tex]
[tex]14 \geq 10y_1 + 15y_2[/tex]

[tex]y_1, y_2 \leq 0[/tex]

(b), I found that y = (0,0)^t worked

(this will be useful for (e))

[tex]0 \geq 0 = -6(0)[/tex]
[tex]5 \geq 0 = 4(0) + 7(0)[/tex]
[tex]14 \geq 0 = 10(0) + 15(0)[/tex]

(c)

Here is the problem, with the first inequality

[tex]-6t + 4(100) + 10(50) = -6t + 900 \leq 1203[/tex]

[tex]-6t \leq 303[/tex]

[tex]t \geq -50.5[/tex]

This doesn't say that all t are positive, I mean okay, all positive values do work because neither the other constraint nor the objective function depend on x_1

Does it make sense to say that "Since [tex]t \geq -50.5[/tex] which therefore includes [tex]t \geq 0[/tex], hence x = (t, 100,50)^t works for all [tex]t \geq 0[/tex]"

The other constraints (if you are wondering) all work. So my question is, do I have to worry about the values [tex]-50.5 \leq t < 0[/tex]?

I excluded 0 because it works.

(d) Nothing fancy here, just z = 5(100) + 14(50) = 1200

(e) If P is feasible, there exists a feasible [tex]x = (x_1, x_2, x_3)^t[/tex].

Since I confirmed that my [tex]y = (0,0)^t[/tex] (or at least I think yu should believe me) is D-feasible, by the Weak Duality Thrm

I have the inequality

[tex]c^t \leq y^t A \leq y^t b[/tex]

However there is a problem.

My A matrix is [tex]\begin{pmatrix}
-6 & 4& 10\\
0& 7& 15
\end{pmatrix}[/tex] This is 2 by 3

And my yt is [tex]\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}[/tex]

How can they multiply together?

(f) need to answer (e) before

(g) I think it follows from (f)? Intuition.

My dual problem is a lot different from yours. Certainly, (y1,y2) = (0,0) does not work.

RGV
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Nope... i messed up my leq and geq again...

I swear it was the other way around last night when I typed this up in preview...I swear...

(a)

[tex]w = 1203y_1 + 1551y_2[/tex]

[tex] 0 \leq -6y_1[/tex]

[tex]5 \leq 4y_1 + 7y_2[/tex]

[tex]14 \leq 10y_1 + 15y_2[/tex]

[tex]y_1, y_2 \geq 0[/tex]

(b)

A feasible solution would be [tex]y = (0,1)^t[/tex]

[tex]w = 1203(0) + 1551(1) = 1551[/tex]

[tex] 0 \leq 0 = -6(0) [/tex]

[tex]5 \leq 7 = 4(0) + 7(1)[/tex]

[tex]14 \leq 15 = 10(0) + 15(1)[/tex]

[tex]0,1 \geq 0[/tex]
 
  • #4
This is OK now.

RGV
 
  • #5
Not okay yet

(c) Still unsure

(e) Can't do anything about this
 
  • #6
Omg I got it.

Admittedly I am still stuck on (c), but the others are clear

(e)

I just need to test the x given in (d)

So z= 5(100) + 14(50) = 1200

So as [tex]t \to \pm \infty[/tex], [tex]z \to 1200[/tex] for all t

(f) No, P is bounded, the limit in (e) shows

(e) No, since P is bounded, so must D.
 
  • #7
I need some comments...anything is okay.

Ray...I love you? Please come back.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I take back everything I said...

[PLAIN]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/5065/unledurp.png

The left one is drawn by me and the right one is drawn by computer

From

[tex]-6y_1 \geq 0[/tex]

It follows that

[tex]y_1 \leq 0[/tex]

I have also found that the two lines intersect only once and it is for x > 0, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=RowReduce{{4%2C7%2C5}%2C{10%2C15%2C14}}

So D is unbounded.

How do I put this into Math? Like it didn't ask me to draw a graph and make this analysis.

How do I do this algebraically?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Also, from Linear Algebra and intuition I have the matrix for the dual

[tex]\left[
\begin{array}{cc|c}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
4 & 7 & 5 \\
10 & 15 & 14 \\
\end{array}
\right][/tex]

I have 3 rows and 2 columns, I must have a free variable.
 
  • #10
I tried e) again and it had NOTHING to do with the dual, at all...e) I need to find a number K such that

[tex]|x_1| \leq K[/tex], [tex]|x_2| \leq K[/tex], [tex]|x_3| \leq K[/tex]

Here is the problem, I am not sure how to find this K and what to do with it after I found it. Like how to show that P is unbounded with the K
 

1. What is an inequality?

An inequality is a mathematical statement that compares two quantities or expressions using inequality symbols such as <, >, ≤, or ≥. It indicates that one value is either smaller or larger than the other.

2. How do I know if I messed up in an inequality?

You can check if you messed up in an inequality by following these steps: 1) Rewrite the inequality using the correct symbols. 2) Simplify both sides of the inequality. 3) Check if the simplified inequality is still true. If it is not, then you may have made a mistake in your calculations.

3. What are common mistakes to avoid in solving inequalities?

Common mistakes in solving inequalities include: 1) Incorrectly identifying the inequality symbol (e.g. using < instead of >). 2) Performing the same operation on both sides of the inequality. 3) Forgetting to reverse the inequality symbol when multiplying or dividing by a negative number. 4) Combining unlike terms on one side of the inequality.

4. How do I solve multi-step inequalities?

To solve multi-step inequalities, follow these steps: 1) Simplify both sides of the inequality by combining like terms. 2) Isolate the variable term on one side of the inequality by performing inverse operations. 3) Check if the inequality symbol needs to be reversed. 4) Simplify the remaining inequality to get the solution.

5. Can I use the same rules for solving equations to solve inequalities?

While some rules for solving equations also apply to inequalities (e.g. addition and subtraction properties), there are additional rules to consider when solving inequalities. For example, when multiplying or dividing by a negative number, the inequality symbol must be reversed. Also, when solving multi-step inequalities, the variable term must be isolated on the side with the smaller coefficient.

Similar threads

  • Differential Equations
Replies
5
Views
637
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
791
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
747
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
67
Views
7K
Back
Top