Timeline for Is it possible to do a linearization without introducing new variables?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2023 at 0:44 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 21, 2023 at 19:08 | vote | accept | Rainbow | ||
| Sep 21, 2023 at 19:07 | history | edited | Rainbow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 21, 2023 at 18:02 | comment | added | Rainbow | thanks for the heads up @NaturalLogZ yes $m$ was a mistake. but the summation for $y$ and $z$ is over $j$ not $i$, and their bound would be 0 to 1000. | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 17:05 | answer | added | RobPratt | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 16:57 | comment | added | NaturalLogZ | One small point, I don't believe this family of constraints should be quantified over all $m$. As currently written $m$ is sort of "doubly defined." (This was edited by @RobPratt.) As for your main question, it would be helpful to know more about your variables. For example, what is the range of $\sum_m y_i^{m,r}$? It would also be helpful to know why you want to avoid introducing variables, and what your overall goal is. Is this a program for a real-world application you are solving with a commercial solver? | |
| Sep 21, 2023 at 16:53 | history | edited | RobPratt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body; edited title
|
| Sep 21, 2023 at 16:43 | history | asked | Rainbow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |