1 w 0 big m example 4 here we assume that bound

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ity constraint involving more than one variable, the previous two transformations can modified in a straightforward manner. ⎧ ⎪1 w= ⎨ ⎪0 ⎩ Big M: example 4. Here we assume that bound. ∑ Equivalent constraints: n if ∑ n ax ≤b i =1 i i otherwise. a x is integer valued and is bounded from above, but we donCt specify the i =1 i i ∑ ∑ n a x ≤ b + M (1 − w). i =1 i i n a x ≥ b + 1 − Mw. i =1 i i w ∈{0,1}. In any feasible solution, the definition of w is correct. If ∑ n a x ≤ b, , then the first constraint is i =1 i i satisfied whether w = 0 or w = 1, and the second constraint forces w to be 1. If the first constraint forces w to be 0, and the second constraint is satisfied. ∑ n a x ≥ b + 1, , then i =1 i i At least one of three inequalities is satisfied. Suppose that we wanted to model the logical constraint that at least one of three inequalities is satisfied. For example, x1 + 4x2 + 2x4 ≥ 7 or 3x1 - 5x2 ≤ 12 or 2x2 + x3 ≥ 6. We...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/18/2014 for the course MGMT 15.053 taught by Professor Jamesorli during the Spring '07 term at MIT.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online