Re: My LP Formulation of the TSP: Conclusions

Uzytkownik <moustapha.diaby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisal w wiadomosci
news:1174831042.904707.279270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
After further checking, I found that in the absence of Constraints
2.12 - 2.13 (of the previous version), the flow connectivity
constraints on the y-variables *only* (i.e., Constraint 2.8) were not
sufficient for one of the steps of Proposition 2
(Specifically,Expression 2.28 in the proof) to always hold. Hence,
constraints 2.12 - 2.13 were indeed not redundant in the previous
version of the paper.

Could you tell us for what N 2.13 is not redundant? It is obvious that it is
redundant for n<10, so if you "discovered" (what I had written half year
ago) that it is not redundant, then tell us at what N.

Also you could invent simmilar to 2.13 - not even mentioned in your article
(simillar but not only for first, but for every "layer") - are they
redundant, so you do not include them (refer to my original counter-example
paper). We can also add variables a_(isj)_(upv)_(krt)_(lqm) or more
dimensions... why do you use only 3?

In the revised version, the flow balance equations on the z-variables
(that I had assumed would implicitly hold in the previous version)
have been explicitly added. (It is easy to verify that these
constraints would also be violated for any solution produced using
Hofman's "construction" approach).

Wow... that is what was written by me half year ago (that after inclusion of
2.13 counter-example is invalid)... But you wrot that it is IMPOSIBLE to
check, so what happen that it is possible now?

All the theoretical developments remain the same. The final model
contains a lot of redundancies, but I have decided it is better to
leave the "finessing" of the model for a later time.

Great, but in my counter-example paper there is also description of
counter-example for model with 2.13... It is bit to large to produce direct
assignements "by hand" but idea remains exactly the same...

Conclusion - unless you publish PROOF in math language your paper will
remain "a claim"... If you could publish source-codes (I did for my work)
then maybe we could find and show you direct CE for this new version of
model.

Best regards,

Radek Hofman



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms
    ... eliminate single points of failure based on a risk assessment. ... constraints are, ... redundant systems for quality sake are one thing. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms
    ... It sounds like you want not only multiple places where constraints are ... redundant systems for quality sake are one thing. ... software development, but I'm not sure exactly what that something is. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: My LP Formulation of the TSP: Conclusions
    ... I found that in the absence of Constraints ... Could you tell us for what N 2.13 is not redundant? ... so you do not include them (refer to my original counter-example ... We should rely on the mathematics of the situation for the "why?'s". ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Hofman and Diaby talk about P=NP at INFORMS 2007
    ... that constraints 2.12-2.13 are not redundant in my model after all, ... you are missing another constraints which would be redundant for smaller n, ... possibly invent - but unless you understand WHY you will not be able to ... "mathematical idiot" appeared to be smarter then smartest model you have ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: P = NP, what are your opinions?
    ...  After Hofman finally got Diaby to see that he ... it is easy to see that without the constraints in question ... this 2006 counter-example claim does not apply to any of the ...
    (comp.theory)