Thanks for the responses.
> It means that only one item has a non-zero weight,
> therefore that weight is one.
>
> It would be interesting to see what happened if you
> eliminated the explicit upper bounds on your weights.
> They should be implied by the other constraints.
That makes sense, so I dropped the upper bound and got the same answers I was
getting before which is a good thing. It also may have run a little faster
which is another good thing. And, clearly, I didn't get any variables coming
up as "non-basic on its upper bound". Still have basic vars valued 0.0, but
I'm OK with that as I figured there was a good deal of degeneracy in my
problem(s).
Also, thanks for the Dantzig reference, Andrew. I dusted that book off my
shelf and will take a look at that chapter and see if my understanding improves.
Joey
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
_______________________________________________
Help-glpk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk
