Hello Marc, in the general case a constraint may have the form:
a + sum b[i] x[i] <=> c + sum d[i] x[i]; Now all columns have to be moved to the left and all constants to the right giving you: sum (b[i]-d[i]) x[i] <=> c - a; Giving your special case a special treatment might create results that are not intuitive in a different context. Why do you not always write the columns on the left hand side and the constants on the right hand side? The code in question is in glpk-4.45/src/glpmpl03.c, function take_member_con, where you can find the transformation rules: /* constraint a * x + b >= c * y + d is transformed to the standard form a * x - c * y >= d - b */ /* constraint a * x + b <= c * y + d is transformed to the standard form a * x - c * y <= d - b */ /* constraint a * x + b = c * y + d is transformed to the standard form a * x - c * y = d - b */ /* ranged constraint c <= a * x + b <= d is transformed to the standard form c - b <= a * x <= d - b */ I have updated http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GLPK/Steps_of_GMPL_File_Processing#Model_generation Best regards Xypron -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 15:22:19 -0600 > Betreff: [Help-glpk] The "dual" suffix and sensitivity to how a constraint is > expressed in GMPL > I came across a curious quirk in the use of the new suffixes in GMPL: how > a constraint is formed leads to non-intuitive dual results. > > This model: > # Simple Model 1 > var x1 >= 0; > var x2 >= 0; > var s1 >= 0; > var s2 >= 0; > > s.t. constraint1 : 1.0 = 0.1*x1 + x2 + s1; > s.t. constraint2 : 1.0 = x1 + 0.2*x2 + s2; > minimize obj: -x1 - x2; > > solve; > > display constraint1.dual; > display constraint2.dual; > > end; > > displays the two duals as > constraint1.dual = 0.816326530612245 > constraint2.dual = 0.918367346938776 > > But changing how constraint1 and constraint2 are written to: > s.t. constraint1 : 0.1*x1 + x2 + s1 = 1.0; > s.t. constraint2 : x1 + 0.2*x2 + s2 = 1.0; > displays the two duals as > constraint1.dual = -0.816326530612245 > constraint2.dual = -0.918367346938776 > > Using the "--wlp" option, it's easy to see what is occuring. In the first > case, the "wlp" output is: > \* Problem: simple *\ > > Minimize > obj: - x1 - x2 > > Subject To > constraint1: - 0.1 x1 - x2 - s1 = -1 > constraint2: - x1 - 0.2 x2 - s2 = -1 > > End > and in the second case the "wlp" output is: > > \* Problem: simple *\ > > Minimize > obj: - x1 - x2 > > Subject To > constraint1: + 0.1 x1 + x2 + s1 = 1 > constraint2: + x1 + 0.2 x2 + s2 = 1 > > End > By switching around the terms on the "=" sign, GMPL reversed the signs of > all of the coefficients. Which reversed the signs on the duals. > > I'm not a fan of the changing of the sign when I plan to use the duals for > calculations later on; it leads to somewhat random behavior, and makes > using the new suffixes a little scary for bigger models when it is not easy to > know the correct sign for each constraint. Is there really a need to > change the signs? I would hope this could be turned off. > > -Marc > > > > > ________________________________ > This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. > If you received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, > you should destroy the e-mail message and any attachments or copies, and you > are prohibited from retaining, distributing, disclosing or using any > information contained herein. Please inform us of the erroneous delivery by > return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone _______________________________________________ Help-glpk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk
