Hell !!
Harald is looking for topics for Google Summer of Code, and I was
wondering
if you thought this some other issues w/MILP might be worth looking at.
Hmmm... Well, I always thought that it would be nice to have a way to
express constraints formally. I mean : it would be nice
On 2014-02-13, Nathann Cohen nathann.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Hell !!
Harald is looking for topics for Google Summer of Code, and I was
wondering
if you thought this some other issues w/MILP might be worth looking at.
Hmmm... Well, I always thought that it would be nice to have a
my posts about the dual simplex method and warm restart here are met
with deafening silnce...
Actually, I'm very interested in it, and that's one of the reasons I was
suggesting this. Although I believe its possible to run dual simplex in
GPLK with the current implementation (it's a
Hi guys
Harald is looking for topics for Google Summer of Code, and I was wondering
if you thought this some other issues w/MILP might be worth looking at.
For example, I have an email from Dima from March 13th of last year
regarding constraint normalization, which I still haven't gotten
And, as you point out, it isn't a problem to add a feature that works with
only one solver; we simply add an optional argument (or more), right?
Well, if it boils down to the addition of an optional argument
somewhere this would be a very easy way out :-)
Anyway, we have no reason to stop
op 09-02-14 19:12, john_perry_usm schreef:
Actually, I was thinking of doing it when I have time. This should be quite
useful for what I need, but I wanted to investigate just how he's going
about it.
And, as you point out, it isn't a problem to add a feature that works with
only one solver;
On 2014-02-10, Erik Quaeghebeur s...@equaeghe.nospammail.net wrote:
op 09-02-14 19:12, john_perry_usm schreef:
Actually, I was thinking of doing it when I have time. This should be quite
useful for what I need, but I wanted to investigate just how he's going
about it.
And, as you point out,
[...], and wanted to learn Cython, I decided to try and write a
Cython/Python GLPK interface.
Would it be faster, and more useful for Sage development, to modify
Sage code ?
For my purpose of learning Cython, this approach was more useful and
certainly faster.
As for this works usefulness
For my purpose of learning Cython, this approach was more useful and
certainly faster.
As for this works usefulness for Sage: the numerical module is far more
than just a wrapper for GLPK (also, but not limited to, wrappers for CBC,
Gurobi, CPLEX, and a wrapper to unify them all). Such coverage
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:15:02 AM UTC-6, Nathann Cohen wrote:
For my purpose of learning Cython, this approach was more useful and
certainly faster.
As for this works usefulness for Sage: the numerical module is far more
than just a wrapper for GLPK (also, but not limited to,
[]... I conduct iterative linear solving, and don't like the idea of
starting afresh every time I add a constraint; as I recall, one ought
to be able to warm start even at that point, simply moving from the
old, at worst currently infeasible solution to a feasible solution.
[...]
FYI: because I
On 2014-01-17, Erik Quaeghebeur s...@equaeghe.nospammail.net wrote:
Does MixedIntegerLinearProgram allow for warm restarts, meaning that
after solving a first time one changes the objective and resolve,
starting from the feasible solution of the previous solver run?
Based on the responses by
On 2014-02-07, Erik Quaeghebeur s...@equaeghe.nospammail.net wrote:
[]... I conduct iterative linear solving, and don't like the idea of
starting afresh every time I add a constraint; as I recall, one ought
to be able to warm start even at that point, simply moving from the
old, at worst
Does MixedIntegerLinearProgram allow for warm restarts, meaning that
after solving a first time one changes the objective and resolve,
starting from the feasible solution of the previous solver run?
Based on the responses by Raniere and John (Thanks), and the implicit
pointers contained
Then (by GLPK default), presolving is turned off, and then a warm start
will be performed when the basis still present in the solver object is
still valid. So this should work when only changing the objective
function. Otherwise (for constraint add/remove or for bound change), the
LP
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:24:05 AM UTC-6, Erik Quaeghebeur wrote:
Hi,
Does MixedIntegerLinearProgram allow for warm restarts, meaning that
after solving a first time one changes the objective and resolve,
starting from the feasible solution of the previous solver run?
It's my
16 matches
Mail list logo
