-3
$\begingroup$

I have a question of how to make a geometric interpretation of this problem

\begin{eqnarray} \mbox{max} & z = 3x_1+x_3 \\ s.a: & \\ & \begin{array}{cc} x_1+2x_2+x_3+x_4& =10 \\ x_1-2x_2+2x_3&=6\\ 1 \leq x_1\leq 4&\\ -5 \leq x_2 \leq 4\\ 0 \leq x_3 \leq 4&\\ 0 \leq x_4 \leq 5& \end{array} \end{eqnarray}

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ How about solve for $x_3$ and $x_4$ explicitly (through the equality constraints), then plot the resulting inequalities as a polytope and the objective function as the level sets $\endgroup$
    – Richard
    Jul 1 '19 at 19:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question is clear, but I have some questions about the title. What does PL stand for? Is this a misspelling of LP? Also, I am not familiar with the term "channeled variables". $\endgroup$ Jul 1 '19 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ "Programação linear com varíaveis canalizadas" in portuguese translates to "Linear programming with bounded with bounded variables" $\endgroup$ Jul 2 '19 at 10:26
  • $\begingroup$ Sry, typo, only "Linear programming with bounded variables". $\endgroup$ Jul 2 '19 at 11:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps this is clear to others, but it is not clear to me what a "geometric interpretation" of an LP is. Can you clarify or provide a reference if this is an often used term? $\endgroup$ Jul 2 '19 at 11:30
5
$\begingroup$

How about this:

From the first two constraints you will cancel out $x_2$ which gives you: $2x_1 + 2x_3 + x_4 = 16$. Now, you can solve for $x_4$ and substitute that in the last constraint ($0 \le x_4 \le 5$) and you will have a system which only relies on $x_1$ and $x_3$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.