Which General Purpose Solver is Recommended for Optimisation Problems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jon535
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General
AI Thread Summary
Mathematica 6.0 is recommended as a general-purpose solver for optimization problems, particularly for those needing to perform constrained nonlinear optimization. Users can utilize the maximize and minimize commands to handle complex profit functions and constraints effectively. An example provided illustrates maximizing profit with specific constraints on item prices, demonstrating Mathematica's capability to yield precise results. The solver integrates well with Excel, making it user-friendly for those familiar with spreadsheet software. Overall, Mathematica 6.0 is highlighted as a powerful alternative to Excel's Solver add-in for optimization tasks.
jon535
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Can anyone recommend a good general purpose solver for optimisation problems. E.g. something better than Excels' Solver add-in. I'm looking for something that is relatively quick and easy to use, and prefereably can be made to work with Excel spreadsheets without too much effort.

Thanks..
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Mathematica 6.0.

You can do constrained nonlinear optimization with the maximize and minimize command.

For example, I want to maximize a profit function of two variables that is not linear subject to the constraints on two item prices, p1 and p2:

constraint 1
region of viable prices that leads to non-negative demand:
10395 \text{p1}+5150\geq 9983 \text{p2}\land \left(\left(\text{p1}>\frac{3000037}{199980}\land 10 \text{p1}\leq 37 \text{p2}+\frac{3000037}{19998}\right)\lor \left(\text{p2}\geq 0\land 0\leq \text{p1}\land \text{p1}\leq \frac{3000037}{199980}\right)\right)

constraint 2
budget constraint is equivalent to:
236059065 \text{p1}=921404813 \text{p2}+1676144666


And the approximate profit function:
-1.31380\times 10^6+133216. \text{p1}-5934.12 \text{p1}^2-172176. \text{p2}+22612.1 \text{p1} \text{p2}-629.842 \text{p2}^2


So the command I enter is this:
\text{Maximize}\left[\left\{profit[p1,p2],10395 \text{p1}+5150\geq 9983 \text{p2}\land \left(\left(\text{p1}>\frac{3000037}{199980}\land 10 \text{p1}\leq 37 \text{p2}+\frac{3000037}{19998}\right)\lor \left(\text{p2}\geq 0\land 0\leq \text{p1}\land \text{p1}\leq \frac{3000037}{199980}\right)\right),-\frac{20 (236059065 \text{p1}-921404813 \text{p2}-7017594666)}{106829}=1000000\right\},\{\text{p1},\text{p2}\}]
The list is of the form {profit[p1,p2], constraint 1, constraint 2} and it gives the EXACT answer which is really long but can be approximated by throwing //N after it.
\{2.22971\times 10^6,\{\text{p1}\to 133.135,\text{p2}\to 32.2893\}\}So for my fictitious company, the max profit will be about 2.2 million dollars, achieved when the price of the first item is 133.14 and the other is 32.29. Incidentally, this was a basic model of a company that sells a hardcover and softcover edition of a book, the cheaper one being the latter of course.

In a word: Mathematica 6.0.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top