Homework 1: ST ND

HOMEWORK 1 PART 1 [ ]
STEP 1: If we add 1st row to the 2nd row: [
STEP 2: If we subtract 2nd row from 3rd row: [
With these elementary row operations we obtain the Row Reduced Echelon Matrix.
STEP1: If we multiply the 1st row by -1: [
STEP2: If we add the 1st row to 2nd row: [
STEP3: If we subtract the 1st row from the 3rd row: [
STEP1: If we multiply 2nd row by : [
STEP1: If we add 2nd row to 3rd row: [
With these elementary row operations we obtain the Row Reduced Echelon Matrix. Since row reduced echelon matrices of A and B are same, we can tell that A and B are row equivalent.
HOMEWORK 1 PART 2 1.18 a) Decision Variables: x1: Amount of low-income houses to be cleared x2: Amount of middle-income houses to be cleared Objective Function:
Constraints / Subject to: Land Availability:
Lower Market limit of low-income houses to be cleared: Upper Market limit of low-income houses to be cleared: Lower Market limit of medium-income houses to be cleared: Upper Market limit of medium-income houses to be cleared: Architectural Adviser Limit:
Budged for Mortgage Limit Renewal Plan Limit: Combined Market Limit: Non-negativity:
Solving it graphically: Constraint 1: x1 = 0 x2 =150 x1 = 200 x2 =0 Constraint 2: Constraint 3:
HOMEWORK 1 Constraint 4: Constraint 5: Constraint 6: x1 = 0 x2 = - 100 x1 = 50 x2 =0 Constraint 7: x1 = 0 x2 = 153,85 x1 = 111,11 x2 =0 Constraint 8: x1 = 0 x2 = 150 x1 = 150 x2 =0
If we solve constraint 6 and 4 together we get the optimal solution as below:
HOMEWORK 1 b) Decision Variables: x1: Amount of low-income houses to be cleared x2: Amount of middle-income houses to be cleared Objective Function:
Constraints / Subject to: Land Availability:
Lower Market limit of low-income houses to be cleared: Upper Market limit of low-income houses to be cleared: Lower Market limit of medium-income houses to be cleared: Upper Market limit of medium-income houses to be cleared: Architectural Adviser Limit:
Budged for Mortgage Limit Renewal Plan Limit: Combined Market Limit: Non-negativity:
Solving it graphically: Constraint 1: x1 = 0 x2 =150 x1 = 200 x2 =0 Constraint 2: Constraint 3: Constraint 4: Constraint 5:
HOMEWORK 1 Constraint 6: x1 = 0 x2 = - 100 x1 = 50 x2 =0 Constraint 7: x1 = 0 x2 = 153,85 x1 = 111,11 x2 =0 Constraint 8: x1 = 0 x2 = 150 x1 = 150 x2 =0
If we solve constraint 3 and 7 together we get the optimal solution as below:
HOMEWORK 1 1.21 Given cik: unit shipping cost from source i, to transfer facility k ckj: unit shipping cost from transfer facility k, to disposal site j fk: fixed cost of potential transfer facility, k qk: capacity of potential transfer facility, k k: unit processing per ton of waste ai: the amount of waste generated at source i bj: the capacity of site j
Decision Variables: uik: Amount of waste transferred from source i, to transfer facility k vkj: Amount of waste transferred from facility k, to disposal j yk: 1 if transfer station k is selected, otherwise 0
Objective Function: Constraints / Subject to: 1 - Mass Balance:
2 Total Waste:
HOMEWORK 1 3 Disposal Site Capacity:
4 Transfer Site Capacity:
5 Non-negativity: All variables
HOMEWORK 1 1.25
st
x1, x2 unrestricted
a) Standard Format of the Problem
st
Let
st
HOMEWORK 1 b) Canonical Format of the Problem
st
Let
st
c) Converting the Problem into Maximization Problem
st
x1, x2 unrestricted
HOMEWORK 1 1.31
St
a)
St
[ ]
+[ ]
+[
+[ ]
+[ ]
+[
+[ ]
=[ ]
b) Since b is in the requirement space, this problem is feasible.
10
HOMEWORK 1 c) Since only the two variables can be positive and the rest are zero, I decided to look at to 2 combinations of arrays that have b in-between. I decided not to take the array [ ] with that I will end up giving a value to a1 which minimizes the objective function. 1- [ ] and [ ] This means x1 and s1 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by solving because
the two constraints:
We get x1 = 4 and s1 = 2 And by solving the objection function: 2- [ ] and [ ] Z=-4
This means x1 and s2 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by solving
We get x1 = 3 and s2 = 1 And by solving the objection function: 3- [ ] and [ ] Z=-3
This means x1 and x2 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by solving
We get x1 = 2 and x2 = 2 And by solving the objection function: 4- [ ] and [ ] Z=-4
This means x1 and x4 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by solving
We get x1 = 2 and x4 = 2 And by solving the objection function: 11 Z=0
HOMEWORK 1 5- [ ] and [ ]
This means x3 and s1 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by
solving the two constraints:
We get x3 = -2 and s1 = -8 variables cannot be negative. 6- [ ] and [ ] This means x3 and s2 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by
We get x3 = 6 and s2 = 16 And by solving the objection function: 7- [ ] and [ ] Z=12
This means x3 and x2 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by
We get x2 = 16/3 and x3 = 2/3 And by solving the objection function: 8- [ ] and [ ] Z=-4
This means x3 and x4 will have value and the rest will be 0. So by
We get x3 = 2/3 and x4 = 16/3 And by solving the objection function: Z=20/3 = 6,67
From the results we can see that Z=12 is the maximum value of Z. So the optimal solution is; x1, x2, x4 ,s1 ,a1= 0 x3 = 6 and s2 = 16 and Z=12
12
HOMEWORK 1
1.35 Minimization problem adding a new constraint: a) If the constraint is redundant then feasible region will not change, will stay same. However if it is not redundant, then feasible region can get smaller. b) If the new constraint satisfies the optimal solution (if it is redundant) then optimality will not change. If it doesnt then the optimal solution can be bigger which is less effective. 1.36 Minimization problem adding a new variable: a) Feasible region can stay same or get larger. We can think as adding a new variable in primal means that adding a constraint in dual. And since dual is a maximization problem, now if the new constraint of dual is redundant then feasible region will not change, otherwise the feasible region will get larger. b) The optimal solution will get smaller or will not change. Think that the feasible region gets larger, then there will be more points which can be optimum solution and we can find a smaller point which is more effective. Otherwise the optimal solution will be same. (and the new variable is non-basic) 1.37 Minimization problem deleting a constraint: (opposite of 1.35) a) If the constraint which is going to be deleted is redundant then feasible region will not change, will stay same. However if it is not redundant, then feasible region can get larger. b) If the optimal point is on the constraint which will be deleted then optimal value can get smaller, otherwise it will stay same. 1.38 Minimization problem deleting a variable: (opposite of 1.36) a) If the variable is non-basic the feasible region will stay same, otherwise it can get smaller. b) The optimal solution will get bigger or will not change. Think that the feasible region gets smaller, then there will be fewer points which can be optimum solution and we can end up with a larger point which is less effective. Otherwise the optimal solution will be same.
13

Homework 1: ST ND

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homework 1: ST ND

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homework 1: ST ND

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOMEWORK 1 PART 1 [ ]

STEP 1: If we add 1st row to the 2nd row: [

STEP 2: If we subtract 2nd row from 3rd row: [

STEP1: If we multiply the 1st row by -1: [

STEP2: If we add the 1st row to 2nd row: [

STEP3: If we subtract the 1st row from the 3rd row: [

STEP1: If we multiply 2nd row by : [

STEP1: If we add 2nd row to 3rd row: [

Constraints / Subject to: Land Availability:

Solving it graphically: Constraint 1: x1 = 0 x2 =150 x1 = 200 x2 =0 Constraint 2: Constraint 3:

If we solve constraint 6 and 4 together we get the optimal solution as below:

Constraints / Subject to: Land Availability:

Solving it graphically: Constraint 1: x1 = 0 x2 =150 x1 = 200 x2 =0 Constraint 2: Constraint 3: Constraint 4: Constraint 5:

HOMEWORK 1 Constraint 6: x1 = 0 x2 = - 100 x1 = 50 x2 =0 Constraint 7: x1 = 0 x2 = 153,85 x1 = 111,11 x2 =0 Constraint 8: x1 = 0 x2 = 150 x1 = 150 x2 =0

If we solve constraint 3 and 7 together we get the optimal solution as below:

Objective Function: Constraints / Subject to: 1 - Mass Balance:

HOMEWORK 1 3 Disposal Site Capacity:

4 Transfer Site Capacity:

5 Non-negativity: All variables

a) Standard Format of the Problem

HOMEWORK 1 b) Canonical Format of the Problem

c) Converting the Problem into Maximization Problem

b) Since b is in the requirement space, this problem is feasible.

the two constraints:

We get x1 = 4 and s1 = 2 And by solving the objection function: 2- [ ] and [ ] Z=-4

the two constraints:

We get x1 = 3 and s2 = 1 And by solving the objection function: 3- [ ] and [ ] Z=-3

the two constraints:

We get x1 = 2 and x2 = 2 And by solving the objection function: 4- [ ] and [ ] Z=-4

the two constraints:

We get x1 = 2 and x4 = 2 And by solving the objection function: 11 Z=0

solving the two constraints:

solving the two constraints:

We get x3 = 6 and s2 = 16 And by solving the objection function: 7- [ ] and [ ] Z=12

solving the two constraints:

solving the two constraints:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.