Center for Computer Studies Institute of Business Administration

Quantitative Methods of Business Decisions MBA-II Handout # 1

Linear Programming
Mathematical modeling with linear inequalities
Ref: – http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~spyros/LP/LP.html
Formulation of the problem:
Linear optimization consists in trying to find the optimal value (maximal or
minimal value, depending on the problem) of a linear function of a certain
number of variables (usually labeled x1, x2, ..., xn and are continuous), given a
set of m linear constraints on these variables (equalities or inequalities).
Even if it may seem quite theoretical in a first approach, linear optimization
has a lot of practical applications in real problems. Especially, it is often used
in industry, governmental, organizations, ecological sciences...to minimize
objectives functions (that can be production costs, numbers of employees to
hire, quantity of pollutants released) given a set of constraints (availability of
workers, of machines, ...).
Linear programming consists in solving the linear problems (also called
Linear Programs (LP’s)) mentioned above, and developing the algorithms and
software able to find the optimal solution to a problem, if there is one, or to
prove that no solution exists if that is the case.

LP's are important - this is because:

 many practical problems can be formulated as LP's,
 there exists an algorithm (called the simplex algorithm) which enables us
to solve LP's numerically relatively easily.
Example 1 - A prototype LP problem:
Consider a company which produces two types of products P 1 and P2.
Production of these products is supported by two workstations W1 and W2,
with each station visited by both product types. If workstation W1 is dedicated
completely to the production of product type P 1, it can process one unit in 36
minutes, while if it is dedicated to the production of product P 2, it can process
one unit in 24 minutes. Similarly, workstation W 2 can produce one unit of
product P1 in 28.8 minutes and one unit of product P 2 also in 28.8 minutes
assuming that it is dedicated completely to the production of the
corresponding product. If the company's profit by disposing one unit of
product P1 is $200 and that of disposing one unit of P 2 is $400, and assumning
that the company can dispose its entire production, how many units of each
product should the company produce on a daily basis to maximize its profit?

Week 1 Page 1 of 19
Solution: First notice that this problem is an optimization problem. Our
objective is to maximize the company's profit, which under the problem
assumptions, is equivalent to maximizing the company's daily profit (we
assume that both work stations can be used for 24 hours). Furthermore, we are
going to maximize the company profit by adjusting the levels of the daily
production for the two items P1 and P2. Therefore, these daily production
levels are the control/decision factors, the values of which we are called to
determine. In the analytical formulation of the problem, the role of these
factors is captured by modeling them as the problem decision variables:
 x1 = number of units of product P1 to be produced daily,
x2 = number of units of product P2 to be produced daily.
In the light of the above discussion, the problem objective can be expressed
analytically as:
maximize f(x1, x2) = 200 x1 + 400 x2 (1)
Equation 1 will be called the objective function of the problem, and the
coefficients 200 and 400 which multiply the decision variables in it, will be
called the objective function coefficients.
Furthermore, any decision regarding the daily production levels for items P 1
and P2 in order to be realizable in the company's operation context must
observe the production capacity of the two worksations W 1 and W2. Hence,
our next step in the problem formulation seeks to introduce these
technological constraints in it. Let's focus first on the constraint which
expresses the finite production capacity of workstation W1. Regarding this
constraint, we know that 36 minutes of work dedicated to the production of
item P1 can result in one unit of that item, while 24 minutes of work dedicated
to the production of item P2 will provide one unit of it. (We assuming that
production of same unit of product require a constant amount of processing
time at both the workstations). Under the further assumption that the
combined production of both items has no side-effects, i.e., does not impose
any additional requirements for production capacity of workstation W1 (e.g.,
zero set-up times), the total capacity (in terms of time length in minutes)
required for producing x1 units of product P1 and x2 units of product P2 is equal
to 36x1 + 24x2. Hence, the technological constraint imposing the condition that
our total daily processing requirements for workstation W 1 should not exceed
its production capacity is analytically expressed by:
36x1 + 24x2 1440 (= 24*60) - notice the time is measured in minutes.
or 3x1 + 2x2 120 (after dividing by 12) (2)

Week 1 Page 2 of 19
Following the same line of reasoning (and under similar assumptions), the
constraint expressing the finite processing capacity of workstation W 2 is given
by:
28.8x1 + 28.8x2 1440 (=24*60)
or x1 + x 2 50 (after dividing by 28.8) (3)
Constraints 2 and 3 are known as the technological constraints of the
problem. In particular, the coefficients of the variables x i, i = 1,2 in them, Tij
where j, i = 1,2, are known as the technological coefficients of the problem
formulation (where T11 = 3, T12 = 2, T21 = 1 = T22), while the values on the
right-hand-side of the two inequalities define the right-hand side (rhs) vector
of the constraints.
Finally, to the above constraints we must add the requirement that any
permissible value for variables xi, i = 1, 2 must be nonnegative, i.e.,
xi 0 i = 1, 2 (4)
since these values express production levels. These constraints are known as
the variable sign restrictions.
Combining Equations 1 to 4, the analytical formulation of our problem is as
follows:
maximize f(x1, x2) = 200 x1 + 400 x2
s.t. 3x1 + 2x2 120
x1 + x2 50
xi 0 i = 1, 2 (5)

Graphical solution of 2-var LP's

In this section, we develop a solution approach for LP problems, which is
based on a geometrical representation of the feasible region and the objective
function. In particular, the space to be considered is the n-dimensional space
with each dimension defined by one of the LP variables x j. The objective
function will be described in this n-dim space by its contour plots, i.e., the sets
of points that correspond to the same objective value. To the extent that the
proposed approach requires the visualization of the underlying geometry, it is
applicable only for LP's with upto three variables. Actually, to facilitate the
visualization of the concepts involved, in this section we shall restrict
ourselves to the two-dimensional case, i.e., to LP's with two decision
variables. In the next section, we shall generalize the geometry introduced
Week 1 Page 3 of 19
here for the 2-var case, to the case of LP's with n decision variables, providing
more analytic (algebraic) characterizations of these concepts and properties.

Feasible Regions of Two-Var LP's

The primary idea behind the geometrical representation adopted in the
subsequent analysis, is to correspond every vector (x1, x2)T denoting the
variables of a 2-var LP, to the point with co-ordinates (x 1, x2) in a 2-dim
(planar) Cartesian system. Under this correspondence, the feasible region of a
2-var LP is depicted by the set of points the coordinates of which satisfy the
LP constraints and the sign restrictions. Since all these constraints are
expressed by linear inequalities, to geometrically characterize the feasible
region, we must first characterize the set of points that constitute the solution
space of a linear inequality. Then, the LP feaslible region will result from the
intersection of the solution spaces corresponding to each technological
constraint and/or sign restriction.

The solution space of a single equality constraint

We start our investigation regarding the geometrical representation of 2-var
linear constraints by considering first constraints of the equality type, i.e.,
a1 x1+ a2 x2 = b (6)
It is a well-known result that, assuming a2 0, this equation corresponds to a
straight line with slope m = – a1 / a2 and intercept d = b / a2. In the special
case where a2 = 0, the solution space (locus) of Equation 6 is still a straight
line perpendicular to the x1-axis, intersecting it at the point (b / a1, 0). Notice
that the presence of an equality constraint restricts the dimensionality of the
feasible solution space by one degree of freedom, i.e., it turns it from a planar
area to a line segment.

The solution space of a single inequality constraint

Consider the constraint:

a1 x1 + a2 x2 b (7)

The set of points satisfying each of the two inequalities implied by Equation 7
is given by one of the two half-planes the boundary of which is defined by the
corresponding equality constraint a1 x1+ a2 x2 = b.
An easy way to determine the half-plane depicting the solution space of a
linear inequality, is to draw the line depicting the solution space of the
corresponding equality constraint, and then test whether the point (0,0)
Week 1 Page 4 of 19
satisfies the inequality. In case of a positive answer, the solution space is the
half-space containing the origin, otherwise, it is the other one. This, of course,
works only if b 0. In general we pick a point say ( , ) such that a1 + a2
b, then:
 the solution space given by a1 x1+ a2 x2 b is the half-space containing
the point ( , ), provided a1 + a2 < b, otherwise, it is the other one,
 the solution space given by a1 x1+ a2 x2 b is the half-space containing
the point ( , ), provided a1 + a2 > b, otherwise, it is the other one.
There is another way to find out the solution space given by a linear
inequality.
The solution space of the inequality given by a 1 x1+ a2 x2 b is that half-space
which lies below the line a1 x1+ a2 x2 = b, provided a2 > 0. In case a2 < 0 the
half-space lies above the line a1 x1+ a2 x2 = b.
The solution space of the inequality given by a 1 x1+ a2 x2 b is that half-space
which lies above the line a1 x1+ a2 x2 = b, provided a2 > 0. In case a2 < 0 the
half-space lies below the line a1 x1+ a2 x2 = b.
In case a2 = 0, the two inequalities to be considered are a1 x1 b and a1 x1 b.
The solution space of the inequality given by a 1x1 b is that half-space which
lies on the left of the line a 1 x1 = b, provided a1 > 0. In case a1 < 0 the half-
space lies on the right of the line a1 x1= b.
The solution space of the inequality given by a 1x1 b is that half-space which
lies on the right of the line a1 x1 = b, provided a1 > 0. In case a1 < 0 the half-
space lies on the left of the line a1 x1= b.
From the above discussion, it follows that the feasible region for the prototype
LP of Equation 5 is the shaded area in the following figure:

Week 1 Page 5 of 19
Figure 1: The feasible region of the prototype example LP

Representing the Objective Function in the LP solution space

The most typical way to represent a two-variable function f(x 1, x2) is to
perceive it as a surface in an (orthogonal) three-dimensional space, where two
of the dimensions correspond to the independent variables x 1 and x2, while the
third dimension provides the function value for any pair (x 1, x2). However, in
the context of our discussion, we are interested in expressing the information
contained in the two-var LP objective function f(x 1, x2) in the Cartesian plane
defined by the two independent variables x1 and x2. For this purpose, we shall
use the concept of contour plots. Contour plots depict a function by
identifying the set of points (x1, x2) that correspond to a constant value of the
function f(x1, x2) = , for any given range of 's. The plot obtained for any
fixed value of is a contour of the function. Studying the structure of a
contour is expected to identify some patterns that essentially depict some
useful properties of the function.
In the case of LP's, the linearity of the objective function implies that any
contour of it will be of the type:
c1x1+ c2x2 = (8)
i.e., a straight line. For a maximization (minimization) problem, this line will
be called an isoprofit (isocost) line. Assuming that c2 0 (o.w., work with c1),
Equation 8 can be rewritten as:
x2 = – (c1 / c2)x1 + / c2 (9)
which implies that by changing the value of , the resulting isoprofit/isocost
lines have constant slope and varying intercept, i.e, they are parallel to each

Week 1 Page 6 of 19
other (which makes sense, since by the definition of this cocnept,
isoprofit/isocost lines cannot intersect). Hence, if we continously increase
from some initial value 0, the corresponding isoprofit lines can be obtained
by ''sliding'' the isoprofit line corresponding to f(x1, x2) = 0 parallel to itself,
in the direction of increasing or decreasing intercepts, depending on whether
c2 is positive or negative.

Graphical solution of the prototype example: a 2-var LP with a unique

optimal solution
The ''sliding motion'' described above suggests a way for identifying the
optimal values for, let's say, a maximum LP problem. The underlying idea is
to keep ''sliding'' the isoprofit line c1x1+ c2x2 = in the direction of increasing
's, until we cross the boundary of the LP feasible region. The implementation
of this idea on the prototype LP of Equation 5 is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Graphical solution of the prototype example LP

From this figure, it follows that the optimal daily production levels for the
protoype LP are given by the coordinates of the point corresponding to the
intersection of line x1 + x2 = 50 with the x2-axis (infact the point is the
intersection of three lines – the third line is 200 x1+ 400 x2 = = 20,000), i.e.,
= 0, = 50. The maximal daily profit is f( , )= 200 x 0 + 400 x 50 =
20,000($). Notice that the optimal point is one of the ''corner'' points of the
feasible region depicted in Figure 2. Can you argue that for the geometry of
the feasible region for 2-var LP's described above, if there is a bounded

Week 1 Page 7 of 19
optimal solution, then there will be one which corresponds to one of the
corner points? (This argument is developed for the broader context of n-var
LP's in the next section. It is infact the Fundamental Theorem of Linear
Programming given below.)
Def.: Give a feasible region in the plane defined by or constraints. A point
of intersection of two boundary lines that is also part of the feasible region is
called a corner point (or vertex) of the feasible region. In the above, A, B,
C, D are vertices for the feasible region shaded in black.
Example 2 For the region given below

B, C, D, E are vertices for the feasible region shaded in red.

The Fundamental Theorem of Linear Programming: If the feasible region to
any linear programming problem has at least one point and is convex and if
the objective function has a maximum (or minimum) value within the feasible
region, then the maximum (or minimum) will always occur at a corner point
in that region.

Example 3
Maximize f(x, y)=80x+70y subject to the constraints:

The corresponding system of linear equations is

and the polygon which represents the feasible region is

Week 1 Page 8 of 19
The following table contains the values of the function at the vertices:

(x,y) f(x,y)
(0,0) 0
(16,0) 1280
(14,4) 1400
(9,9) 1350
(0,12) 840
The maximum value of the function is 1400 and occurs at (14,4).
Example 4
Minimize f(x, y)=60x+30y subject to the constraints:

Consider the corresponding system of linear equations and the feasible region:

It is left as an exercise for the readers to construct a table containing all the
feasible corner points and also find the optimal corner point(s) along with the
optimum value.

Week 1 Page 9 of 19
2-var LP's with many optimal solutions
Consider our prototype example with the unit profit of item P 1 being $600
instead of $200. Under this modification, the problem isoprofit lines become:
600x1+ 400x2 = x2 = – (3 / 2)x1 + / 400
and they are parallel to the line corresponding to the first problem constraint:
3x1 + 2x2 = 120 x2 = – (3 / 2)x1 + 60
Therefore, if we try to apply the optimizing technique of the previous
paragraph in this case, we get the situation depicted below (Figure 3), i.e.,
every point in the line segment CD is an optimal point, providing the optimal
objective value of $24,000.

Figure 3: An LP with many optimal solutions

It is worth-noticing that even in this case of many optimal solutions, we have
two of them corresponding to ''corner'' points of the feasible region, namely
points C and D.

Infeasible 2-var LP's

Consider again the original prototype example, modified by the additional
requirements (imposed by the company's marketing department) that the daily
production of product P1 must be at least 30 units, and that of product P 2
should exceed 20 units. These requirements introduce two new constraints
into the problem formulation, i.e.,
x1 30

Week 1 Page 10 of 19
 x2 20
Attempting to plot the feasible region for this new problem, we get Figure 4,
which indicates that there are no points on the (x 1, x1)-plane that satisfy all
constraints, and therefore our problem is infeasible (over-constrained).

Figure 4: An infeasible LP

Unbounded 2-var LP's

In the LP's considered above, the feasible region (if not empty) was a bounded
area of the (x1, x2)-plane. For this kind of problems it is obvious that all values
of the LP objective function (and therefore the optimal) are bounded. Consider
however the following LP:
maximum f(x1, x2) = 2x1 – x2
s.t. x1 – x2 1
2x1 + x2 6
xi 0 i = 1,2
The feasible region and the direction of improvement for the isoprofit lines for
this problem are given in Figure 5.

Week 1 Page 11 of 19
Figure 5: An unbounded LP
It is easy to see that the feasible region of this problem is unbounded, and
furthermore, the orientation of the isoprofit lines is such that no matter how
far we ''slide'' these lines in the direction of increasing the objective function,
they will always share some points with the feasible region. Therefore, this is
an example of a (2-var) LP whose objective function can take arbitrarily large
values. Such an LP is characterized as unbounded. Notice, however, that even
though an unbounded feasible region is a necessary condition for an LP to be
unbounded, it is not sufficient; to convince yourself, try to graphically identify
the optimal solution for the above LP in the case that the objective function is
changed to: maximum f(x1, x2) = –x2.
Summarizing the above discussion, we have shown that a 2-var LP can either
 have a unique optimal solution which corresponds to a ''corner'' point of
the feasible region, or
 have many optimal solutions that correspond to an entire ''edge'' of the
feasible region, or
 be unbounded, or
 be infeasible.
In the next section, we generalize this geometrical description of the LP
solution space for the n-var LP case, and we provide a brief (informal)
derivation of the Fundamental Theorem of Linear Programming. The latter
states that if an LP has a bounded optimal solution, then it must have one
Week 1 Page 12 of 19
which is an extreme point of its feasible region. The Simplex algorithm to be
discussed in a coming section of this set of notes essentially exploits this
fundamental result to reduce the space to be searched for an optimal solution.
Remark: The above problem is a production planning problem.
Some of the other major application areas to which LP can be applied are:
 Blending.
 Oil refinery management.
 Distribution.
 Financial and economic planning.
 Manpower planning.
 Blast furnace burdening.
 Farm planning.
We consider below few more specific examples of the types of problem that
can be formulated as LP's. Note here that the key to formulating LP's is
practice. However a useful hint is that common objectives for LP's are
minimize cost/maximize profit.

Example 5 – Another Production planning problem

A company manufactures four variants of the same product and in the final
part of the manufacturing process there are assembly, polishing and packing
operations. For each variant the time required for these operations is shown
below (in minutes) as is the profit per unit sold.
Assembly Polish Pack Profit (£)
Variant 1 2 3 2 1.50
2 4 2 3 2.50
3 3 3 2 3.00
4 7 4 5 4.50
 Given the current state of the labor force the company estimate that,
each year, they have 100000 minutes of assembly time, 50000 minutes
of polishing time and 60000 minutes of packing time available. How
many of each variant should the company make per year and what is the
associated profit?
 Suppose now that the company is free to decide how much time to
devote to each of the three operations (assembly, polishing and packing)
within the total allowable time of 210000 (= 100000 + 50000 + 60000)
minutes. How many of each variant should the company make per year
and what is the associated profit?

Week 1 Page 13 of 19
Production planning solution

Variables
Let:
xi be the number of units of variant i (i=1,2,3,4) made per year
Tass be the number of minutes used in assembly per year
Tpol be the number of minutes used in polishing per year
Tpac be the number of minutes used in packing per year
where xi >= 0 i=1,2,3,4 and Tass, Tpol, Tpac >= 0

Constraints
(a) operation time definition
Tass = 2x1 + 4x2 + 3x3 + 7x4 (assembly)
Tpol = 3x1 + 2x2 + 3x3 + 4x4 (polish)
Tpac = 2x1 + 3x2 + 2x3 + 5x4 (pack)
(b) operation time limits
The operation time limits depend upon the situation being considered. In the
first situation, where the maximum time that can be spent on each operation is
specified, we simply have:
Tass <= 100000 (assembly)
Tpol <= 50000 (polish)
Tpac <= 60000 (pack)
In the second situation, where the only limitation is on the total time spent on
all operations, we simply have:
Tass + Tpol + Tpac <= 210000 (total time)

Objective
Presumably to maximize profit - hence we have
maximize 1.5x1 + 2.5x2 + 3.0x3 + 4.5x4
which gives us the complete formulation of the problem.
We shall solve this particular problem later in the course.

Example 6 - Blending problem

Consider the example of a manufacturer of animal feed who is producing feed
mix for dairy cattle. In our simple example the feed mix contains two active

Week 1 Page 14 of 19
ingredients and a filler to provide bulk. One kg of feed mix must contain a
minimum quantity of each of four nutrients as below:
Nutrient A B C D
gram 90 50 20 2
The ingredients have the following nutrient values and cost
A B C D Cost/kg
Ingredient 1 (gram/kg) 100 80 40 10 40
Ingredient 2 (gram/kg) 200 150 20 - 60
What should be the amounts of active ingredients and filler in one kg of feed
mix?

Blending problem solution

Variables
In order to solve this problem it is best to think in terms of one kilogram of
feed mix. That kilogram is made up of three parts - ingredient 1, ingredient 2
and filler so let:
x1 = amount (kg) of ingredient 1 in one kg of feed mix
x2 = amount (kg) of ingredient 2 in one kg of feed mix
x3 = amount (kg) of filler in one kg of feed mix
where x1 0, x2 0 and x3 0.
Essentially these variables (x1, x2 and x3) can be thought of as the recipe
telling us how to make up one kilogram of feed mix.

Constraints
 nutrient constraints
100x1 + 200x2 90 (nutrient A)
80x1 + 150x2 50 (nutrient B)
40x1 + 20x2 20 (nutrient C)
10x1 2 (nutrient D)
Note the use of an inequality rather than an equality in these constraints, as we
assume that the nutrient levels we want are lower limits on the amount of
nutrient in one kg of feed mix.
 balancing constraint (an implicit constraint due to the definition of the
variables)
x1 + x2 + x3 = 1

Week 1 Page 15 of 19
Objective
Presumably to minimize cost, i.e.
minimize 40x1 + 60x2
which gives us our complete LP model for the blending problem.
In case you are interested the optimal solution to this LP (solved using the
simplex method discussed very shortly – (Can you solve it graphically?)) is
x1= 0.3667, x2=0.2667 and x3=0.3667 to four decimal places.
Obvious extensions/uses for this LP model include:
 increasing the number of nutrients considered,
 increasing the number of possible ingredients considered - more
ingredients can never increase the overall cost (other things being
unchanged), and may lead to a decrease in overall cost,
 placing both upper and lower limits on nutrients,
 dealing with cost changes,
 dealing with supply difficulties,
 filler cost.
Blending problems of this type were, in fact, some of the earliest applications
of LP (for human nutrition during rationing) and are still widely used in the
production of animal feedstuffs.
Example 7. After a particular operation, a patient receives three different
types of painkillers: A, B, and C.
Type A rates a 2 in effectiveness, Type B rates a 2.5 in effectiveness, and
Type C rates a 3 in effectiveness. For medical reasons, the patient can receive
no more than three doses of Type A, no more than five doses of Type A and
Type C combined, and no more than seven doses of Type B and Type C
combined during a 24-hour period. How many doses of each type should be
given to the patient in a 24-hour period in order to maximize the painkilling
effect?
Sol.: x = number of doses of A
y = number of doses of B
z = number of doses of C
P = total pain killing effect

Note: In most cases the variables of interest are nonnegative.

Week 1 Page 16 of 19
Exercise 1 Solve graphically
maximize f(x1, x2) = 3 x1 + x2
s.t. 2 x1 – x2 8
–x1 + x2 5
xi 0 i = 1, 2.
Exercise 2 Solve graphically
minimize f(x1, x2) = 3 x1 – x2
s.t. 2 x1 + x2 3
x1 + 2 x2 3
xi 0 i = 1, 2.
Exercise 3 Solve graphically
maximize f(x1, x2) = 2 x1 + x2
s.t. 2 x1 + x2 8
x1 + x2 5
xi 0 i = 1, 2.
Do we have a unique optimal solution? If not try to describe mathematically
all the feasible points which yield the same optimum value.
Exercise 4 Consider the following LP (Linear Program):
minimize f(x1, x2) = – x1 – x2
subject to x1 + 2x2 12
x1 + x2 8
2x1 + x2 14
x1 and x2 0.
a) Find an optimum solution of the LP by using the graphical procedure.
b) Is optimum answer of part a) unique? If not find all values of x 1 and x2
where the objective function assumes the same optimum value.
Exercise 5
A particular salad contains 4 units of vitamin A, 5 units of vitamin B-complex
and 2 mg of fat per serving. A nutritious soup contains 6 units of vitamin A, 2
units of vitamin B-complex, and 3 mg of fat per serving. If a lunch consisting
of these two foods is to have at least 10 units of vitamin A and at least 10 units
of vitamin B-complex, how many servings of each should be used in order to
minimize the total milligrams of fat?

Week 1 Page 17 of 19
Exercise 6
A farmer has 100 acres on which to plant two crops: corn and wheat. To
produce these crops, there are certain expenses, as shown in the table:

After the harvest, the farmer must usually store the crops while awaiting
favorable market conditions. Each acre yields an average of 110 bushels of
corn or 30 bushels of wheat. The limitations of resources are
Available capital: $15,000
Available storage facilities: 4000 bushels.
If the net profit (after all expenses have been subtracted) per bushel of corn is
$1.30 and for wheat is $2.00, how should the farmer plant the 100 acres to
maximize profits?
Exercise 7
Sears ships a certain air-conditioning unit from factories in Portland, Oregon,
and Flint, Michigan, to distribution centers in Los Angeles, California and
Atlanta, Georgia. The shipping costs are summarized in the table:

The supply and demand, in number of units, is shown below:

Week 1 Page 18 of 19
How should shipments be made from Portland and Flint to minimize the
shipping costs?
Exercise 8 Solve graphically
maximize f(x1, x2) = –2x1 – 3x2
s.t. x1 + 2x2 5
xi 0 i = 1, 2.
Exercise 9 Solve graphically
minimize f(x1, x2) = 2x1 – x2
s.t. x1 – x2 1
2x1 + x2 6
xi 0 i = 1, 2.
Exercise 10 Solve graphically
maximize f(x1, x2) = x1 + 2x2
s.t. 2x1 + x2 2
xi 0 i = 1, 2.

In case of an unbounded solution, try to explain in terms of isoprofits lines.

Exercise 11 Solve graphically

maximize f(x1, x2) = x1 – 2x2
s.t. 2x1 + x2 2
xi 0 i = 1, 2.

In case of an unbounded solution, try to explain in terms of isoprofits lines.

Week 1 Page 19 of 19