Finding $a$ for a Degenerate BFS in Given System of Restrictions

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the values of \( a \) for which a given system of linear inequalities has a degenerate basic feasible solution. The context includes exploring the implications of degeneracy in linear programming, particularly in relation to the simplex method and the characteristics of basic feasible solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the definition of a degenerate basic feasible solution, noting it has fewer than \( m \) non-zero components.
  • Others suggest that degeneracy can be identified through graphical methods or by analyzing basic feasible solutions systematically.
  • A participant proposes that a degenerate basic feasible solution occurs when certain conditions on \( a \) lead to zero values in the tableau.
  • There is mention of specific values of \( a \) (e.g., \( a = \frac{3}{2} \)) that may lead to degeneracy based on the tableau calculations.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about how to systematically find all values of \( a \) that yield a degenerate solution.
  • There are discussions about the implications of encountering a degenerate solution and whether it can be avoided.
  • Participants explore the possibility of choosing different variables to enter the basis in the simplex method to investigate degeneracy further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definition of a degenerate basic feasible solution but express differing views on how to identify all values of \( a \) that lead to such solutions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the systematic approach to finding these values.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of the right-hand side values in the tableau and their relationship to degeneracy. There is also a recognition of the need to explore multiple basic feasible solutions to fully understand the conditions for degeneracy.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners of linear programming, particularly those interested in the simplex method and the characteristics of basic feasible solutions in optimization problems.

  • #31
evinda said:
Don't we also have to check the case where we have the following tableau:

$\begin{matrix}
B & b & P_1 & P_2 & P_3 & P_4 & P_5 & \theta & \\
P_3 & 4-\frac{6}{a} & 1-\frac{2}{a} & 0 & 1 & 0 & -\frac{2}{a} & & L_1'=L_1-2L_3'\\ \\
P_4 & 2-\frac{3}{a} & 2-\frac{1}{a} & 0 & 0 & 1 & -\frac{1}{a} & & L_2'=L_2-L_3'\\ \\
P_2 & \frac{3}{a} & \frac{1}{a} & 1 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{a} & & L_3'=\frac{L_3}{a}
\end{matrix}$

where $a> \frac{3}{2}$

and we choose $P_1$ to get in the basis instead of $P_5$ ?

Ah, did we miss that one?
Yes, we should also check that one. (Nod)

The corresponding graph is:
View attachment 5111
The tableau corresponds to the intersection of the green line with the y-axis.
If we bring in $P_1$ and leave $P_3$, we move to the intersection of the blue line with the green line. (Nerd)
Hmm... didn't we already do that? (Wondering)
 

Attachments

  • LP_degenerate_2.png
    LP_degenerate_2.png
    1.8 KB · Views: 131
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I like Serena said:
Ah, did we miss that one?
Yes, we should also check that one. (Nod)

Then we get the following tableau, right?
$\begin{matrix}
B & b & P_1 & P_2 & P_3 & P_4 & P_5 & & \theta & \\
P_3 & \frac{6a-9}{2a-1} & 0 & 0 & 1 & \frac{2-a}{2a-1} & \frac{3}{1-2a} & & &L_1''=L_1'-\left( 1-\frac{2}{a} \right )L_2'' \\ \\
P_1 & \frac{2-\frac{3}{a}}{2-\frac{1}{a}} & 1 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2-\frac{1}{a}} & \frac{1}{1-2a} & & & L_2''=\frac{L_2'}{2-\frac{1}{a}}\\ \\
P_2 & \frac{4}{2a-1} & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{1-2a} & \frac{2}{2a-1} & & &L_3''=L_3'-\frac{1}{a}L_2''
\end{matrix}$

This gives a non-degenerate basic feasible solution so we have to continue the algorithm. Right? (Thinking)

I like Serena said:
Hmm... didn't we already do that? (Wondering)

Did we? At which point? (Thinking)
 
  • #33
evinda said:
Then we get the following tableau, right?
$\begin{matrix}
B & b & P_1 & P_2 & P_3 & P_4 & P_5 & & \theta & \\
P_3 & \frac{6a-9}{2a-1} & 0 & 0 & 1 & \frac{2-a}{2a-1} & \frac{3}{1-2a} & & &L_1''=L_1'-\left( 1-\frac{2}{a} \right )L_2'' \\ \\
P_1 & \frac{2-\frac{3}{a}}{2-\frac{1}{a}} & 1 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2-\frac{1}{a}} & \frac{1}{1-2a} & & & L_2''=\frac{L_2'}{2-\frac{1}{a}}\\ \\
P_2 & \frac{4}{2a-1} & 0 & 1 & 0 & \frac{1}{1-2a} & \frac{2}{2a-1} & & &L_3''=L_3'-\frac{1}{a}L_2''
\end{matrix}$

This gives a non-degenerate basic feasible solution so we have to continue the algorithm. Right? (Thinking)

I don't think that is a feasible solution for $a > \frac 32$.
Instead I think we should move to the basis $P_1, P_2, P_4$. (Thinking)
Did we? At which point? (Thinking)

Turns out we covered basis $P_2, P_3, P_4$ in post #7.
But I can't find basis $P_1, P_2, P_4$. (Nerd)
 
  • #34
I like Serena said:
I don't think that is a feasible solution for $a > \frac 32$.

Why isn't it feasible? Aren't all the components positive? (Thinking)

$a> \frac{3}{2} \Rightarrow 2a>3 \Rightarrow 6a>9$

$2a>3 \Rightarrow 2a>1$

$\frac{2-\frac{3}{a}}{2-\frac{1}{a}}=\frac{2a-3}{2a-1}>0$
 
  • #35
evinda said:
Why isn't it feasible? Aren't all the components positive? (Thinking)

$a> \frac{3}{2} \Rightarrow 2a>3 \Rightarrow 6a>9$

$2a>3 \Rightarrow 2a>1$

$\frac{2-\frac{3}{a}}{2-\frac{1}{a}}=\frac{2a-3}{2a-1}>0$

It shouldn't be feasible since it corresponds to the intersection of the red line (non-basic variable $P_4$)[/color] and the green line (non-basic variable $P_5$)[/color].
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/5111
When $a > \frac 32$ that intersection should have either $x_2 < 0$ or $x_1 < 0$.
 
  • #36
I like Serena said:
It shouldn't be feasible since it corresponds to the intersection of the red line (non-basic variable $P_4$)[/color] and the green line (non-basic variable $P_5$)[/color].

When $a > \frac 32$ that intersection should have either $x_2 < 0$ or $x_1 < 0$.

So have I done something wrong at the calculations? (Thinking)Which $a$ did you pick to draw the third inequality?
 
  • #37
evinda said:
So have I done something wrong at the calculations? (Thinking)Which $a$ did you pick to draw the third inequality?

I picked $a=3$.
Oh wait. (Wait)
It's the intersection of the blue line (non-basic variable $P_4$)[/color] and the green line (non-basic variable $P_5$)[/color].
I made a mistake. (Blush).
 
  • #38
I like Serena said:
It's the intersection of the blue line (non-basic variable $P_4$)[/color] and the green line (non-basic variable $P_5$)[/color].
I made a mistake. (Blush).

So we have to continue the algorithm, picking either the column $P_4$ or the column $P_5$, right?
 
  • #39
If we choose $P_4$ to get in the basis we have to distinguish the cases:

  • $a \leq 2$ and
  • $a>2$

Right? (Thinking)
 
  • #40
I like Serena said:
One way to find it, is to make a drawing, which will reveal where and when degeneracy can happen.
Could you explain further to me how we can find from a drawing all the possible degenerate basic feasible solution although we don't have a specific value of $a$ ? (Thinking)
 
  • #41
evinda said:
Could you explain further to me how we can find from a drawing all the possible degenerate basic feasible solution although we don't have a specific value of $a$ ? (Thinking)

Every point on the boundary of the feasible region where 3 or more lines intersect is a degenerate basic feasible solution.
When we get to such a point with the simplex method, we won't be able to tell in which direction to continue. (Nerd)

This is already the case in $(0,2)$, although it still depends on $a$ whether that is actually a feasible solution.
Actually, for $a=0$ we would also get degenerate basic feasible solutions. (Nerd)
 
  • #42
I like Serena said:
Every point on the boundary of the feasible region where 3 or more lines intersect is a degenerate basic feasible solution.

Why is it like that? (Thinking)

I like Serena said:
When we get to such a point with the simplex method, we won't be able to tell in which direction to continue. (Nerd)

You mean that there will be more than one possibilities to check? (Thinking)

I like Serena said:
This is already the case in $(0,2)$, although it still depends on $a$ whether that is actually a feasible solution.
Actually, for $a=0$ we would also get degenerate basic feasible solutions. (Nerd)

How do we find $(0,2)$ ?

Also if we pick a specific $a$ and find the points on the boundary will we find all the possible degenerate basic feasible solutions?
i.e. if we pick a different one will we find the same points? (Thinking)
 
  • #43
evinda said:
So we have to continue the algorithm, picking either the column $P_4$ or the column $P_5$, right?

If we pick $P_4$ to get in the basis, then if $a \leq 3$ $P_2$ will get out of the basis. Otherwise $P_3$ gets out of the basis. Right? (Thinking)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K