Advertisement

Implementation Issues

  • Robert J. Vanderbei
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 114)

Abstract

In the previous chapter, we rewrote the simplex method using matrix notation. This is the first step toward our aim of describing the simplex method as one would implement it as a computer program. In this chapter, we shall continue in this direction by addressing some important implementation issues.

Keywords

Simplex Method Implementation Issue Gaussian Elimination Basis Matrix Permutation Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Markowitz, H. (1957), ‘The elimination form of the inverse and its application to linear programming’, Management Science 3, 255–269.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Duff, I., Erisman, A. & Reid, J. (1986), Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices, Oxford University Press, Oxford.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Golub, G. & VanLoan, C. (1989), Matrix Computations, 2 edn, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Baltimore.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Gill, P., Murray, W. & Wright, M. (1991), Numerical Linear Algebra and Optimization, Vol. 1, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dantzig, G. & Orchard-Hayes, W. (1954), ‘The product form for the inverse in the simplex method’, Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Computation 8, 64–67.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Forrest, J. & Tomlin, J. (1972), ‘Updating triangular factors of the basis to maintain sparsity in the product form simplex method’, Mathematical Programming 2, 263– 278.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Saunders, M. (1973), The complexity of LU updating in the simplex method, in R. Andersen & R. Brent, eds, ‘The complexity of computational problem solving’, University Press, Queensland, pp. 214–230.Google Scholar
  8. Reid, J. (1982), ‘A sparsity-exploiting variant of the Bartels-Golub decomposition for linear programming bases’, Mathematical Programming 24, 55–69.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldfarb, D. & Reid, J. (1977), ‘A practicable steepest-edge simplex algorithm’, Mathematical Programming 12, 361–371.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris, P. (1973), ‘Pivot selection methods of the Devex LP code’, Mathematical Programming 5, 1–28.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert J.Vanderbei 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Vanderbei
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Operations Research and Financial EngineeringPrinceton UniversityNew JerseyUSA

Personalised recommendations