Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E n g i n e e r i n
H a s a n u d d i n
U n i v e r s i t y
It's easy to graph the system: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 1999-2009 All Rights
Reserved
Menu
Teaching Materials
Publications
Class
958
day s since
I'm Back
Links
Universitas Hasanuddin
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
University of Indonesia
Toy ohashi University of Technology
Persatuan Insiny ur Indonesia
PII Cabang Makassar
To find the corner points -- which aren't always clear from the graph -- I'll pair the
lines (thus forming a system of linear equations) and solve:
y = ( 1/2 )x + 7
y = 3x
y = ( 1/2 )x + 7
y=x2
y = 3x
y=x2
( 1/2 )x + 7 = 3x
x + 14 = 6x
14 = 7x
2=x
( 1/2 )x + 7 = x 2
x + 14 = 2x 4
18 = 3x
6=x
3x = x 2
2x = 2
x = 1
y = 3(2) = 6
y = (6) 2 = 4
y = 3(1) = 3
So the corner points are (2, 6), (6, 4), and (1, 3).
Somebody really smart proved that, for linear systems like this, the maximum
and minimum values of the optimization equation will always be on the corners of
the feasibility region. So, to find the solution to this exercise, I only need to plug
these three points into "z = 3x + 4y".
(2, 6):
z = 3(2) + 4(6) = 6 + 24 = 30
First I'll solve the fourth and fifth constraints for easier graphing:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
From the graph, I can see which lines cross to form the corners, so I know which
lines to pair up in order to verify the coordinates. I'll start at the "top" of the
shaded area and work my way clockwise around the edges:
y = x + 7
y=x+5
y = x + 7
x=5
x=5
y=0
x + 7 = x + 5
2 = 2x
1=x
y = (5) + 7 = 2
[nothing to do]
corner at (1, 6)
corner at (5, 2)
corner at (5, 0)
y=0
y = ( 1/2 )x + 2
y = ( 1/2 )x + 2
x=0
x=0
y=x+5
( 1/2 )x + 2 = 0
2 = (1/2)x
4=x
y = ( 1/2 )(0) + 2
y=0+2
y=2
y = (0) + 5 = 5
corner at (4, 0)
corner at (0, 2)
corner at (0, 5)
y = (1) + 5 = 6
Now I'll plug each corner point into the optimization equation, z = 0.4x + 3.2y:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
y > 3,000,000
y < ( 1/2 )x
Using a scale that counts by millions (so "y = 3" on the graph means "y is three
million"), the above system graphs as follows:
Taking a closer look, I can see the feasibility region a little better:
When you test the corner points at (6.4m, 3.2m), (6.4m, 3m), and (6m, 3m), you
should get a maximal solution of R = $16.96m at (x, y) = (6.4m, 3.2m).
A calculator company produces a scientific calculator and a graphing
calculator. Long-term projections indicate an expected demand of at
least 100 scientific and 80 graphing calculators each day. Because of
limitations on production capacity, no more than 200scientific
and 170 graphing calculators can be made daily. To satisfy a shipping
contract, a total of at least 200 calculators much be shipped each day.
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
When you test the corner points at (100, 170), (200, 170), (200, 80), (120, 80),
and (100, 100), you should obtain the maximum value of R = 650 at (x, y) = (100,
170). That is, the solution is "100scientific calculators and 170 graphing calculators".
You need to buy some filing cabinets. You know that Cabinet X costs $10
per unit, requires six square feet of floor space, and holds eight cubic
feet of files. Cabinet Y costs $20 per unit, requires eight square feet of
floor space, and holds twelve cubic feet of files. You have been given
$140 for this purchase, though you don't have to spend that much. The
office has room for no more than 72 square feet of cabinets. How many of
which model should you buy, in order to maximize shorage volume?
The question ask for the number of cabinets I need to buy, so my variables will
stand for that:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
When you test the corner points at (8, 3), (0, 7), and (12, 0), you should obtain a
maximal volume of100 cubic feet by buying eight of model X and three of model Y.
In order to ensure optimal health (and thus accurate test results), a lab
technician needs to feed the rabbits a daily diet containing a minimum of
24 grams (g) of fat, 36 g of carbohydrates, and 4 g of protien. But the
rabbits should be fed no more than five ounces of food a day.
Rather than order rabbit food that is custom-blended, it is cheaper to
order Food X and Food Y, and blend them for an optimal mix. Food X
contains 8 g of fat, 12 g of carbohydrates, and 2 g of protein per ounce,
and costs $0.20 per ounce. Food Y contains 12 g of fat, 12 g of
carbohydrates, and 1 g of protein per ounce, at a cost of $0.30 per ounce.
What is the optimal blend?
Since the exercise is asking for the number of ounces of each food required for
the optimal daily blend, my variables will stand for the number of ounces of each:
8x + 12y > 24
x +y<5
The optimization equation will be the cost relation C = 0.2x + 0.3y, but this
time I'll be finding the minimum value, not the maximum.
After rearranging the inequalities, the system graphs as:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
(Note: One of the lines above is irrelevant to the system. Can you tell which
one?)
When you test the corners at (0, 4), (0, 5), (3, 0), (5, 0), and (1, 2), you should get a
minimum cost of sixty cents per daily serving, using three ounces of Food X only.
Sometimes you'll have more than just two things to deal with. The next example has
three things to juggle; the next page provides an example of juggling four things.
You have $12,000 to invest, and three different funds from which to
choose. The municipal bond fund has a 7% return, the local bank's CDs
have an 8% return, and the high-risk account has an expected (hoped-for)
12% return. To minimize risk, you decide not to invest any more than
$2,000 in the high-risk account. For tax reasons, you need to invest at
least three times as much in the municipal bonds as in the bank CDs.
Assuming the year-end yields are as expected, what are the optimal
investment amounts?
Since the question is asking me to find the amount of money for each account,
my variables will need to stand for those amounts. Since I'd like to deal with
smaller numbers, I'll count by thousands, so:
y < x + 12
Also, the upper limit on the high-risk account gives me the inequality (12
x y) < 2. This simplifies as: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 1999-2009 All Rights
Reserved
y > x + 10
And the tax requirements give me y < ( 1/3 )x. The optimization equation will be
the total investment yield, Y = 0.07x + 0.08y + 0.12(12 x y) = 1.44
x >0
y>0
y > x + 10
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
y < x + 12
y < ( 1/3 )x
The feasibility region graphs as:
When you test the corner points at (9, 3), (12, 0), (10, 0), and (7.5, 2.5), you should
get an optimal return of $965 when you invest $7,500 in municipal bonds, $2,500 in
CDs, and the remaining $2,000in the high-risk account.
A building supply has two locations in town. The office receives orders
from two customers, each requiring 3/4-inch plywood. Customer A needs
fifty sheets and Customer B needs seventy sheets.
The warehouse on the east side of town has eighty sheets in stock; the
west-side warehouse has forty-five sheets in stock. Delivery costs per
sheet are as follows: $0.50 from the eastern warehouse to Customer A,
$0.60 from the eastern warehouse to Customer B, $0.40 from the western
warehouse to Customer A, and $0.55 from the western warehouse to
Customer B.
Find the shipping arrangement which minimizes costs.
Hmm... I've got four things to consider:
east warehouse to Customer A
east warehouse to Customer B
west warehouse to Customer A
west warehouse to Customer B
But I only have two variables. How can I handle this?
The variables obviously need to stand for the number of sheets being shipped,
but I have four different sets of sheets. This calls for subscripts and explicit
labelling:
shipped from east warehouse to Customer A: Ae
shipped from west warehouse to Customer A: Aw
shipped from east warehouse to Customer B: Be
shipped from west warehouse to Customer B: Bw
Since Customer A wants 50 sheets and Customer B wants 70 sheets, then:
0 < Ae + Be < 80
0 < Aw + Bw < 45
And the optimization equation will be the shipping cost:
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
0 < Ae + Be < 80
0 < (50 Ae) + (70 Be) < 45
Simplifying the second inequality above gives me:
0 < Ae + Be < 80
0 < 120 Ae Be < 45
Multiplying through by 1 (thereby flipping the inequality signs) and
adding 120 to all three "sides" of the second inequality, I get:
0 < Ae + Be < 80
120 > Ae + Be > 75
Since Ae + Be is no less than 75 and is no more than 80, then these two
inequalities reduce to one:
75 < Ae + Be < 80
I can also simplify the optimization equation:
0 < Ae < 50
0 < Be < 70
Since I have only two variables now, and since I'll be graphing with x and y, I'll
rename the variables: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 1999-2009 All Rights Reserved
x = Ae
y = Be
Then entire system is as follows:
x >0
x < 50
y>0
y > x + 75
y < 70
y < x + 80
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
When you test the corner points, (5, 70), (10, 70), (50, 30), and (50, 25), you should
get the minimum cost when you ship as follows:
Comments
Sign in | Recent Site Activ ity | Report Abuse | Print Page | Powered By Google Sites
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com