- #1
flyingpig
- 2,579
- 1
I just pulled a paragraph that's giving me a headache atm.
[PLAIN]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8697/unledwjt.png
The LOP (Figure 2.1) they refer to is
[PLAIN]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9787/unledylv.png
How on Earth did they show that this feasible set is bounded? Yes I know they took a K, but how did they choose "20 to be the smallest"?
How would you even show that it is bounded?
Why would K be the smallest? The inequality [tex]|x_j| \leq K[/tex] obviously says
[tex]|x_1| \leq K[/tex], [tex]|x_2| \leq K[/tex]
At first I thought they found an K through the contraints, i.e.
[tex]3|x_1| +5|x_2| \leq 8K \leq 90[/tex]
And they took [tex]K = \frac{90}{8} = 11.25[/tex]
I mean they said "a K", so it isn't unique, but this ugly number obviously is not true.
How would you do it if the constraints are NOT in [tex]\mathbb{R^2}[/tex]?
[PLAIN]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8697/unledwjt.png
The LOP (Figure 2.1) they refer to is
[PLAIN]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9787/unledylv.png
How on Earth did they show that this feasible set is bounded? Yes I know they took a K, but how did they choose "20 to be the smallest"?
How would you even show that it is bounded?
Why would K be the smallest? The inequality [tex]|x_j| \leq K[/tex] obviously says
[tex]|x_1| \leq K[/tex], [tex]|x_2| \leq K[/tex]
At first I thought they found an K through the contraints, i.e.
[tex]3|x_1| +5|x_2| \leq 8K \leq 90[/tex]
And they took [tex]K = \frac{90}{8} = 11.25[/tex]
I mean they said "a K", so it isn't unique, but this ugly number obviously is not true.
How would you do it if the constraints are NOT in [tex]\mathbb{R^2}[/tex]?
Last edited by a moderator: