Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha.diaby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 23 Jun 2005 08:22:09 -0700
Bryan Olson wrote:
> moustapha.diaby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> moustapha.diaby also wrote ...
> >>> > Set x(i,s,j) = y(i,s,j,i,s,j) at the start of each iteration.
>
> [Bryan Olson wrote:]
> >>>Then those y values of the form y(i,s,j,i,s,j) will be at least
> >>>as large as lambda.
> >>
> >>When lambda is their minimum?
> >
> > You are actually correct on this point. So ignore my comment above.
> >>
> >>>How do you handle the others? You can't
> >>>subtract lambda, because that could be negative. You can't leave
> >>>them as they are, because then constraints the proof relies upon
> >>>won't hold.
> >>
> >>What specific constraints are you referring to?
> >
> > The question above remains: What specific constraints are you referring
> > to?
>
> The argument for Proposition 3 cites 2.21, 2.22, 2.28, and 2.29
> as if they held for y' (the final "adjusted y"). The latter two
> are not directly constraints, but are proven assuming other
> constraints on y.
OK, I understand your argument. May I need to be more detailed in the
proof. I will do so in a (minor) revision that will be posted shortly.
>
> > What would cause them to stop holding (since the solution at hand
> > is feasible)?
>
> If you subtract lambda from all the y[u,p,v,k,r,t] values, some
> can become negative. If you just subtract lambda from values of
> the form y[i,s,j,i,s,j], then constraints such as 2.21 don't
> hold.
>
>
> --
> --Bryan
.
- References:
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: Patricia Shanahan
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha . diaby
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha . diaby
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha . diaby
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha . diaby
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha . diaby
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: moustapha . diaby
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- Prev by Date: CfP : Workshop on Model Design and Validation (MoDeVa) at Models
- Next by Date: Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- Previous by thread: Re: F.Y.I. - Revised paper "P=NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- Next by thread: Terminology/typo corrections in "P = NP: LP Formulation of the TSP"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|