Talk:Simplex algorithm method

Adapted from an example we did at school, but completely reworded (nothing but numbers copied). Should this be in wikibooks? Jjbeard 14:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

directly from D1 textbook

this is directly from a Heinemann modular mathematics book. Isnt that illegal?

Changed Problem

Sorry about this - it IS from that book. We didn't have the book at the time, and the teacher did it from his own note - i assumed it wasn't copyright. I have put in a new problem generated by myself, and the wording is different from the book (which we have now been given) anyway, even if the method is the same (which is kind of the point).

Jjbeard 10:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that "the point" is to respect other people's copyright. If wikipedia starts to ignore that, the project would find itself in a world of sh*t. Please be a bit more carefull in the future. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Should both slack variables really have zero coefficients??

Michael Hardy 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• In this case: yes, as there are two basic variables and two equations. If the problem is over-specified (as it typically is in the real world), some of the "excess" slack variables may have to be nonzero. -- smurfix 13:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm trying to learn how this algorithm works and am confused by the following lines:

Rewrite the objective to get the (ideal) objective function (i.e. all excess capacity used):

   \begin{matrix} & 4x & + & 3y & + & 0s & + & 0t & = & Z \\ Z \ - & 4x & - & 3y & - & 0s & - & 0t & = & 0 \end{matrix} 

Why are we doing this? Are we just taking the terms from the equations with the biggest coefficient values? If I figure out whats going on I'll clarify, but right now I don't know what to change, and think that a change would be good. Epachamo 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. I made the change. Epachamo 00:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

I think this article is great overall. It helped me learn the simplex method. A suggestion for improvement might be to add a section discussing how to know when a solution does not exist. Epachamo 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

merge!

Why are there separate articles titled "simplex algorithm method" and "simplex algorithm"? This situation seems to have persisted for more than a year. "Simplex algorithm" seems to be the obviously preferable title since nothing is lost by dropping the third word. Michael Hardy 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since a copyright concern is raised, and since the other, older, article is clearer and far more complete, and since the title of the other article is clearly better, I've redirected this page to the other article. Michael Hardy 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)