Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- From: monir <monirg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:48:54 -0700
On Oct 24, 8:21 am, toni.lass...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 24, 4:12 am, monir <mon...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
3. The desired condition "A1 > B1" CAN NOT be replaced by "A1 >= B1 OR
"A1 >= B1+something". A singular behaviour exists at A1=B1, and thus
the condition doesn't exist. Keep in mind that the correct solution
could yield A1 value to be a fraction or many-order-of-magnitude
greater than B1.
4. I've done some additional analytical work on the condition A1 > B1
and been able to reformulate the problem such that the constraint is
no longer required. The number of constraints now is less by one.
5. Solver now works correctly and as desired, yet I'm still curious to
why ">", "<", and/or "<>" are not included in the comparison operators
box !! I'm sure, if asked, MS would/could provide a lengthy and
complex reasoning!!
Optimization problems with strict inequality constraints typically
have no solutions (the feasible set is not closed), so it would not
make sense to include such constraints in the solvers. The best
workaround, as you seem to have done, is to circumvent the constraint
by formulating the problem in a slightly different way.
Tim and toni;
Thank you kindly for your time and for your contribution to the post.
Monir
.
- References:
- Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- From: Tim Wescott
- Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- From: monir
- Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- From: Tim Wescott
- Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- From: monir
- Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- From: toni . lassila
- Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- Prev by Date: Exact or Least-Squares Solution 5 Equations
- Next by Date: Estimate variance of rational function
- Previous by thread: Re: Calculation Operator ">" not ">=" !!
- Next by thread: how to solve this kind of optimization problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
