@@70ME3E It does indeed satisfy the other 2 constraints, but fot this solution to be feasible, it ALSO needs to satisfy the constraint that was branched on, namely x2>=3. X2 is set to 2.75 by Hui Jiang, and 2.75 is not equal to or greater than 3. Thus, the misunderstanding lies in that the condition x2>=3 must also be satisfied for the solution to be feasible in this situation. In the general problem it might be feasible, but we only count it as feasible if it is feasible for the sub-problem. Does that clear things up?
That 3rd constraint just had to be left un-simplified! That's okay, thanks for the video. Did you or did you not choose the non-integer optimum solution for node 0?
"Did you or did you not choose the non-integer optimum solution for node 0?" What do you mean? we cannot choose it as the solution, because we need integers. Computing it without the integrality constraints is just part of the algorithm.
Is it just me or did he not explain a single thing that’s going on here
not very understanding
where are these numbers coming from?
exactly!!!
but I have studied this concept in my computer science studies so 6.5 is the lowest number that will result in z
@@XEQUTE ya, if you can ever figure it out, make sure to write the complete idea somewhere, since these vague concepts won't be easy to see later on.
@@SequinBrain 1. well I have , so you need i can explain in very simple words
2. yeah , writing it down as we speak!
Well , no reply but i will write it down here for anyone to understand .
so first of all our function is 2x1 +4x2
Sesiniz cok iyi arkadaşlar arada beğenin gelip dinliyim
Because of the integer coefficients in the funktion you could have stoped after node 1B. Am i right? So x=(8,2) is a optimal solution.
Why is node 2D infeasible? Let x1=7 and x2=2.75, they satisfy 2*x1+4*x2
As u can see, 2D is branched from 1B, with x2>=3. so yeah
Does seem feasible to me too, satisfies the other 2 constraints too you didn't mention, namely x1
@@70ME3E It does indeed satisfy the other 2 constraints, but fot this solution to be feasible, it ALSO needs to satisfy the constraint that was branched on, namely x2>=3. X2 is set to 2.75 by Hui Jiang, and 2.75 is not equal to or greater than 3.
Thus, the misunderstanding lies in that the condition x2>=3 must also be satisfied for the solution to be feasible in this situation.
In the general problem it might be feasible, but we only count it as feasible if it is feasible for the sub-problem.
Does that clear things up?
because
when
ull
try
to
dothedual:simplexe
ull
find
onlynegativ
values
which
means
translate
it
in
englishwhat
wecalll:
solution
irréalisable
Because x1 and x2 have to be integers finally.
Your voice is soothing, my energy increased before the exam thankssss
Thank u sir god bless you
Thank you
Thanks :)
Perfect!!!!
perfect sir, thank yoy
why are you not explaining why we are stopping in some instances, I mean !!! can you please explain in detail.. ugh
That 3rd constraint just had to be left un-simplified! That's okay, thanks for the video. Did you or did you not choose the non-integer optimum solution for node 0?
"Did you or did you not choose the non-integer optimum solution for node 0?"
What do you mean? we cannot choose it as the solution, because we need integers. Computing it without the integrality constraints is just part of the algorithm.
Thanks!
really helpful thanks alot
Thank you!!
This video is very helpful, thank you for posting!
Perfect sir