 # 1 1 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Slides by John Loucks St. Edward’s University.

## Presentation on theme: "1 1 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Slides by John Loucks St. Edward’s University."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Slides by John Loucks St. Edward’s University

2 2 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Chapter 7 Introduction to Linear Programming n Linear Programming Problem n Problem Formulation n A Simple Maximization Problem n Graphical Solution Procedure n Extreme Points and the Optimal Solution n Computer Solutions n A Simple Minimization Problem n Special Cases

3 3 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Linear Programming n Linear programming has nothing to do with computer programming. n The use of the word “programming” here means “choosing a course of action.” n Linear programming involves choosing a course of action when the mathematical model of the problem contains only linear functions.

4 4 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Linear Programming (LP) Problem n The maximization or minimization of some quantity is the objective in all linear programming problems. n All LP problems have constraints that limit the degree to which the objective can be pursued. n A feasible solution satisfies all the problem's constraints. n An optimal solution is a feasible solution that results in the largest possible objective function value when maximizing (or smallest when minimizing). n A graphical solution method can be used to solve a linear program with two variables.

5 5 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Linear Programming (LP) Problem n If both the objective function and the constraints are linear, the problem is referred to as a linear programming problem. n Linear functions are functions in which each variable appears in a separate term raised to the first power and is multiplied by a constant (which could be 0). n Linear constraints are linear functions that are restricted to be "less than or equal to", "equal to", or "greater than or equal to" a constant.

6 6 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Problem Formulation n Problem formulation or modeling is the process of translating a verbal statement of a problem into a mathematical statement. n Formulating models is an art that can only be mastered with practice and experience. n Every LP problems has some unique features, but most problems also have common features. n General guidelines for LP model formulation are illustrated on the slides that follow.

7 7 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Guidelines for Model Formulation n Understand the problem thoroughly. n Describe the objective. n Describe each constraint. n Define the decision variables. n Write the objective in terms of the decision variables. n Write the constraints in terms of the decision variables.

8 8 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: A Simple Maximization Problem n LP Formulation Max 5 x 1 + 7 x 2 s.t. x 1 < 6 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 19 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 19 x 1 + x 2 < 8 x 1 + x 2 < 8 x 1 > 0 and x 2 > 0 x 1 > 0 and x 2 > 0 ObjectiveFunction “Regular”Constraints Non-negativity Constraints Constraints

9 9 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution n First Constraint Graphed x 2 x 2 x1x1x1x1 x 1 = 6 (6, 0) 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Shaded region contains all feasible points for this constraint

10 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution n Second Constraint Graphed 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 = 19 x 2 x 2 x1x1x1x1 (0, 6  ) (9 , 0) 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Shaded region contains all feasible points for this constraint

11 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution n Third Constraint Graphed x 2 x 2 x1x1x1x1 x 1 + x 2 = 8 (0, 8) (8, 0) 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Shaded region contains all feasible points for this constraint

12 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution x1x1x1x1 x 2 x 2 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 = 19 x 1 + x 2 = 8 x 1 = 6 n Combined-Constraint Graph Showing Feasible Region Feasible Region Region

13 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution n Objective Function Line x1x1x1x1 x 2 x 2 (7, 0) (0, 5) Objective Function 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 35 Objective Function 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 35 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution n Selected Objective Function Lines x1x1x1x1 x 2 x 2 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 35 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 42 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 39

15 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Graphical Solution n Optimal Solution x1x1x1x1 x 2 x 2 Maximum Objective Function Line 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 46 Maximum Objective Function Line 5 x 1 + 7x 2 = 46 Optimal Solution ( x 1 = 5, x 2 = 3) Optimal Solution ( x 1 = 5, x 2 = 3) 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Summary of the Graphical Solution Procedure for Maximization Problems n Prepare a graph of the feasible solutions for each of the constraints. n Determine the feasible region that satisfies all the constraints simultaneously. n Draw an objective function line. n Move parallel objective function lines toward larger objective function values without entirely leaving the feasible region. n Any feasible solution on the objective function line with the largest value is an optimal solution.

17 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Slack and Surplus Variables n A linear program in which all the variables are non- negative and all the constraints are equalities is said to be in standard form. n Standard form is attained by adding slack variables to "less than or equal to" constraints, and by subtracting surplus variables from "greater than or equal to" constraints. n Slack and surplus variables represent the difference between the left and right sides of the constraints. n Slack and surplus variables have objective function coefficients equal to 0.

18 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Max 5 x 1 + 7 x 2 + 0 s 1 + 0 s 2 + 0 s 3 s.t. x 1 + s 1 = 6 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 + s 2 = 19 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 + s 2 = 19 x 1 + x 2 + s 3 = 8 x 1 + x 2 + s 3 = 8 x 1, x 2, s 1, s 2, s 3 > 0 x 1, x 2, s 1, s 2, s 3 > 0 n Example 1 in Standard Form Slack Variables (for < constraints) s 1, s 2, and s 3 are s lack variables

19 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning n Optimal Solution Slack Variables x1x1x1x1 x 2 x 2 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SecondConstraint: 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 = 19 ThirdConstraint: x 1 + x 2 = 8 FirstConstraint: x 1 = 6 OptimalSolution ( x 1 = 5, x 2 = 3) OptimalSolution s 1 = 1 s 2 = 0 s 3 = 0

20 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Extreme Points and the Optimal Solution n The corners or vertices of the feasible region are referred to as the extreme points. n An optimal solution to an LP problem can be found at an extreme point of the feasible region. n When looking for the optimal solution, you do not have to evaluate all feasible solution points. n You have to consider only the extreme points of the feasible region.

21 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Extreme Points x1x1x1x1 Feasible Region Region 11 22 33 44 55 x 2 x 2 87654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0, 6  ) (5, 3) (0, 0) (6, 2) (6, 0)

22 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Computer Solutions n LP problems involving 1000s of variables and 1000s of constraints are now routinely solved with computer packages. n Linear programming solvers are now part of many spreadsheet packages, such as Microsoft Excel. n Leading commercial packages include CPLEX, LINGO, MOSEK, Xpress-MP, and Premium Solver for Excel. n The Management Scientist, a package developed by the authors of your textbook, has an LP module.

23 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Interpretation of Computer Output n In this chapter we will discuss the following output: objective function value objective function value values of the decision variables values of the decision variables reduced costs reduced costs slack and surplus slack and surplus n In the next chapter we will discuss how an optimal solution is affected by a change in: a coefficient of the objective function a coefficient of the objective function the right-hand side value of a constraint the right-hand side value of a constraint

24 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Spreadsheet Solution n Partial Spreadsheet Showing Problem Data

25 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Spreadsheet Solution n Partial Spreadsheet Showing Solution

26 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Spreadsheet Solution n Interpretation of Computer Output We see from the previous slide that: Objective Function Value = 46 Objective Function Value = 46 Decision Variable #1 ( x 1 ) = 5 Decision Variable #1 ( x 1 ) = 5 Decision Variable #2 ( x 2 ) = 3 Decision Variable #2 ( x 2 ) = 3 Slack in Constraint #1 = 6 – 5 = 1 Slack in Constraint #1 = 6 – 5 = 1 Slack in Constraint #2 = 19 – 19 = 0 Slack in Constraint #2 = 19 – 19 = 0 Slack in Constraint #3 = 8 – 8 = 0 Slack in Constraint #3 = 8 – 8 = 0

27 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Reduced Cost n The reduced cost for a decision variable whose value is 0 in the optimal solution is: the amount the variable's objective function coefficient would have to improve (increase for maximization problems, decrease for minimization problems) before this variable could assume a positive value. n The reduced cost for a decision variable whose value is > 0 in the optimal solution is 0.

28 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 1: Spreadsheet Solution n Reduced Costs

29 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: A Simple Minimization Problem n LP Formulation Min 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 s.t. 2 x 1 + 5 x 2 > 10 4 x 1  x 2 > 12 4 x 1  x 2 > 12 x 1 + x 2 > 4 x 1 + x 2 > 4 x 1, x 2 > 0 x 1, x 2 > 0

30 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Graphical Solution n Graph the Constraints Constraint 1: When x 1 = 0, then x 2 = 2; when x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 5. Connect (5,0) and (0,2). The ">" side is above this line. Constraint 1: When x 1 = 0, then x 2 = 2; when x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 5. Connect (5,0) and (0,2). The ">" side is above this line. Constraint 2: When x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 3. But setting x 1 to 0 will yield x 2 = -12, which is not on the graph. Thus, to get a second point on this line, set x 1 to any number larger than 3 and solve for x 2 : when Constraint 2: When x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 3. But setting x 1 to 0 will yield x 2 = -12, which is not on the graph. Thus, to get a second point on this line, set x 1 to any number larger than 3 and solve for x 2 : when x 1 = 5, then x 2 = 8. Connect (3,0) and (5,8). The ">" side is to the right. Constraint 3: When x 1 = 0, then x 2 = 4; when x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 4. Connect (4,0) and (0,4). The ">" side is above this line. Constraint 3: When x 1 = 0, then x 2 = 4; when x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 4. Connect (4,0) and (0,4). The ">" side is above this line.

31 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Graphical Solution n Constraints Graphed x2x2x2x2 x2x2x2x2 4 x 1  x 2 > 12 2 x 1 + 5 x 2 > 10 x1x1x1x1 x1x1x1x1 Feasible Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 654321 x 1 + x 2 > 4

32 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Graphical Solution n Graph the Objective Function Set the objective function equal to an arbitrary constant (say 20) and graph it. For 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 20, when x 1 = 0, then x 2 = 10; when x 2 = 0, then x 1 = 4. Connect (4,0) and (0,10). n Move the Objective Function Line Toward Optimality Move it in the direction which lowers its value (down), since we are minimizing, until it touches the last point of the feasible region, determined by the last two constraints.

33 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Graphical Solution x2x2x2x2 x2x2x2x2 4 x 1  x 2 > 12 2 x 1 + 5 x 2 > 10 x1x1x1x1 x1x1x1x1 1 2 3 4 5 6 654321 x 1 + x 2 > 4 n Objective Function Graphed Min 5 x 1 + 2 x 2

34 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning n Solve for the Extreme Point at the Intersection of the Two Binding Constraints 4 x 1 - x 2 = 12 4 x 1 - x 2 = 12 x 1 + x 2 = 4 x 1 + x 2 = 4 Adding these two equations gives: Adding these two equations gives: 5 x 1 = 16 or x 1 = 16/5 5 x 1 = 16 or x 1 = 16/5 Substituting this into x 1 + x 2 = 4 gives: x 2 = 4/5 Substituting this into x 1 + x 2 = 4 gives: x 2 = 4/5 Example 2: Graphical Solution n Solve for the Optimal Value of the Objective Function 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 5(16/5) + 2(4/5) = 88/5 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 5(16/5) + 2(4/5) = 88/5

35 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Graphical Solution x2x2x2x2 x2x2x2x2 4 x 1  x 2 > 12 2 x 1 + 5 x 2 > 10 x1x1x1x1 x1x1x1x1 1 2 3 4 5 6 654321 x 1 + x 2 > 4 n Optimal Solution Optimal Solution: Optimal Solution: x 1 = 16/5, x 2 = 4/5, x 1 = 16/5, x 2 = 4/5, 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 17.6 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 17.6 Optimal Solution: Optimal Solution: x 1 = 16/5, x 2 = 4/5, x 1 = 16/5, x 2 = 4/5, 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 17.6 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 = 17.6

36 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Summary of the Graphical Solution Procedure for Minimization Problems n Prepare a graph of the feasible solutions for each of the constraints. n Determine the feasible region that satisfies all the constraints simultaneously. n Draw an objective function line. n Move parallel objective function lines toward smaller objective function values without entirely leaving the feasible region. n Any feasible solution on the objective function line with the smallest value is an optimal solution.

37 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Surplus Variables n Example 2 in Standard Form Min 5 x 1 + 2 x 2 + 0 s 1 + 0 s 2 + 0 s 3 s.t. 2 x 1 + 5 x 2  s 1 = 10 4 x 1  x 2  s 2 = 12 4 x 1  x 2  s 2 = 12 x 1 + x 2  s 3 = 4 x 1 + x 2  s 3 = 4 x 1, x 2, s 1, s 2, s 3 > 0 x 1, x 2, s 1, s 2, s 3 > 0 s 1, s 2, and s 3 are surplus variables

38 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Spreadsheet Solution n Partial Spreadsheet Showing Solution

39 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example 2: Spreadsheet Solution n Interpretation of Computer Output We see from the previous slide that: Objective Function Value = 17.6 Objective Function Value = 17.6 Decision Variable #1 ( x 1 ) = 3.2 Decision Variable #1 ( x 1 ) = 3.2 Decision Variable #2 ( x 2 ) = 0.8 Decision Variable #2 ( x 2 ) = 0.8 Surplus in Constraint #1 = 10.4  10 = 0.4 Surplus in Constraint #1 = 10.4  10 = 0.4 Surplus in Constraint #2 = 12.0  12 = 0.0 Surplus in Constraint #2 = 12.0  12 = 0.0 Surplus in Constraint #3 = 4.0  4 = 0.0 Surplus in Constraint #3 = 4.0  4 = 0.0

40 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Feasible Region n The feasible region for a two-variable LP problem can be nonexistent, a single point, a line, a polygon, or an unbounded area. n Any linear program falls in one of four categories: is infeasible is infeasible has a unique optimal solution has a unique optimal solution has alternative optimal solutions has alternative optimal solutions has an objective function that can be increased without bound has an objective function that can be increased without bound n A feasible region may be unbounded and yet there may be optimal solutions. This is common in minimization problems and is possible in maximization problems.

41 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Special Cases n Alternative Optimal Solutions In the graphical method, if the objective function line is parallel to a boundary constraint in the direction of optimization, there are alternate optimal solutions, with all points on this line segment being optimal.

42 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example: Alternative Optimal Solutions n Consider the following LP problem. Max 4 x 1 + 6 x 2 s.t. x 1 < 6 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 18 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 18 x 1 + x 2 < 7 x 1 + x 2 < 7 x 1 > 0 and x 2 > 0 x 1 > 0 and x 2 > 0

43 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning n Boundary constraint 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 18 and objective function Max 4 x 1 + 6 x 2 are parallel. All points on line segment A – B are optimal solutions. x1x1x1x1 x 2 x 2 7654321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 18 x 1 + x 2 < 7 x 1 < 6 Example: Alternative Optimal Solutions Max 4 x 1 + 6 x 2 A B

44 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Special Cases n Infeasibility No solution to the LP problem satisfies all the constraints, including the non-negativity conditions. No solution to the LP problem satisfies all the constraints, including the non-negativity conditions. Graphically, this means a feasible region does not exist. Graphically, this means a feasible region does not exist. Causes include: Causes include: A formulation error has been made.A formulation error has been made. Management’s expectations are too high.Management’s expectations are too high. Too many restrictions have been placed on the problem (i.e. the problem is over-constrained).Too many restrictions have been placed on the problem (i.e. the problem is over-constrained).

45 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example: Infeasible Problem n Consider the following LP problem. Max 2 x 1 + 6 x 2 s.t. 4 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 12 2 x 1 + x 2 > 8 2 x 1 + x 2 > 8 x 1, x 2 > 0 x 1, x 2 > 0

46 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example: Infeasible Problem n There are no points that satisfy both constraints, so there is no feasible region (and no feasible solution). x2x2x2x2 x1x1x1x1 4 x 1 + 3 x 2 < 12 2 x 1 + x 2 > 8 2 4 6 8 10 4 8 2 6 10

47 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Special Cases n Unbounded The solution to a maximization LP problem is unbounded if the value of the solution may be made indefinitely large without violating any of the constraints. The solution to a maximization LP problem is unbounded if the value of the solution may be made indefinitely large without violating any of the constraints. For real problems, this is the result of improper formulation. (Quite likely, a constraint has been inadvertently omitted.) For real problems, this is the result of improper formulation. (Quite likely, a constraint has been inadvertently omitted.)

48 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example: Unbounded Solution n Consider the following LP problem. Max 4 x 1 + 5 x 2 s.t. x 1 + x 2 > 5 3 x 1 + x 2 > 8 3 x 1 + x 2 > 8 x 1, x 2 > 0 x 1, x 2 > 0

49 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Example: Unbounded Solution n The feasible region is unbounded and the objective function line can be moved outward from the origin without bound, infinitely increasing the objective function. x2x2x2x2 x1x1x1x1 3 x 1 + x 2 > 8 x 1 + x 2 > 5 Max 4 x 1 + 5 x 2 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 4 2

50 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning End of Chapter 7

Download ppt "1 1 Slide © 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning Slides by John Loucks St. Edward’s University."

Similar presentations