1

Maximize $$ x_1 + 2x_2$$ \begin{align} x_1 - 4x_2 &\le 4 \\ -2x_1 + x_2 &\le 2 \\ -3x_1 + 4x_2&\le 12 \\ 2x_1 + x_2 &\le 8 \end{align}

Identify all the extreme points and reformulate the problem in terms of convex combination of the extreme points. Solve the resulting problem. Is any extreme point degenerate? Explain.

Kuifje
  • 9,584

1 Answers1

1

There are two decision variables, so an extreme point corresponds to a point where two of the constraints are binding. There are four constraints, so there are a total of $\binom 42=6$ potential extreme points. We solve: \begin{align} x_1-4x_2 &= 4\\ -2x_1 + x_2 &= 2 \end{align} for $(x_1,x_2) = \left(-\frac{12}7,-\frac{10}7\right),\tag1$ \begin{align} x_1-4x_2 &= 4\\ -3x_1+4x_2&=12 \end{align} for $(x_1,x_2) = \left(-8,-3\right),\tag2$ \begin{align} x_1-4x_2 &= 4\\ 2x_1+x_2&=8 \end{align} for $(x_1,x_2) = \left(4,0\right),\tag3$ \begin{align} -2x_1+x_2&=2\\ -3x_1+4x_2&=12 \end{align} for $(x_1,x_2) = \left(\frac45,\frac{18}5\right),\tag4$ \begin{align} -2x_1+x_2&=2\\ 2x_1+x_2&=8 \end{align} for $(x_1,x_2) = \left(\frac32,5\right),\tag5$ \begin{align} -3x_1+4x_2&=12\\ 2x_1+x_2&=8 \end{align} for $(x_1,x_2) = \left(\frac{20}{11},\frac{48}{11}\right).\tag6$ Checking for feasibility, we find that $(2)$ and $(5)$ do not satisfy the constraints. Reforumulating the problem in terms of convex combinations of the extreme points, we have \begin{align} \max&\quad -\frac{32}7\lambda_1 + 4\lambda_3 + 8\lambda_4 + \frac{116}{11}\lambda_6\\ \mathrm{s.t.}&\quad \lambda_1+\lambda_3+\lambda_4+\lambda_6 = 1\\ &\quad\lambda_1,\lambda_3,\lambda_4,\lambda_6\geqslant 0. \end{align}

This has optimal solution $\lambda_6=1$ with objective value $\frac{116}{11}$, corresponding to the optimal basic feasible solution in the original LP with the last two constraints binding.

Math1000
  • 36,983
  • 1
    Not every intersection of two constraints is feasible to the others. For example, $(3/2,5)$, which is your point (5), does not satisfy the third constraint and hence is not an extreme point. – RobPratt Jan 22 '20 at 03:15
  • @RobPratt Thanks for pointing that out, I have fixed it now. – Math1000 Jan 22 '20 at 03:45