Talk:Simplex algorithm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My apologies but me not understand
"while having no polynomial time worst-case complexity implementation"... (last-but-one paragraph).
Is it possible to enhance this sentence? Thanks. Pfortuny 09:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Last paragraph also speaks about
"much better computational complexity"
which for me sounds weird. Pfortuny 09:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor from IP-address 4.250.xxx.xxx: I don't understand why you want to associate Dantzig's method to mathematical optimization and the other simplex method, with which you have apparently some experience, with computer programming. Surely both methods are part of mathematical optimization, since they both solve optimization problems. Similarly, both methods are part of computer programming, since they can be programmed on a computer. -- Jitse Niesen 18:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
---
I associate "Dantzig's method to mathematical optimization" with "the other simplex method" because the documentation I read in order to fulfill the customer's request for implementing the simplex method optimization was derived by computation scientists (not me, I just implemented their algorithms in 6809 assembly code) from what appears to my eyes as what you descibe as "Dantzig's method to mathematical optimization". As I did this around 1985, I no longer recall the exact materials I read. In any case, I'll make no reverts to the current article. Cheers from user 4.250.xxx.xxx ---
Contents |
[edit] Algorithmic content
This article speaks a lot "about the algorithm", but very little about how the algorithm actually works. I've therefore added an "algorithm" stub-section in which I'll try to add some content over the next week. "Terminology" and "running time" sections should probably also be added. --Fredrik Orderud 08:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move "Nelder-Mead simplex method" to an own article?
May I suggest moving the "Nelder-Mead simplex method" to an own article? Based on the fact that [1] claims that this method it "totally different". --Fredrik Orderud 18:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please do. The methods are indeed very different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I will. What about naming the article "Nelder-Mead method", and of course add a link from the existing simplex article. --Fredrik Orderud 19:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- All "Nelder-Mead" content is now moved to Nelder-Mead method. Feel free to rename the article if you prefer another name:) --Fredrik Orderud 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Excellent. I replaced the redirects at Nelder-Mead simplex method, downhill simplex method and downhill simplex to go to the new articles. In case you didn't know: You can find the redirects by clicking on the "What links here" link to the left. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks a lot! I'll keep that in mind next time I create a new article. --Fredrik Orderud 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Category
My reversion has been reverted by myself. I didn't realise that combinatorial optimization was a subcat of optimisation algorithms - the article didn't say anything about it, so it seemed like it was a move to a completely different part of mathematics which didn't make any sense. I apologise for any hurt to Mikkalai for the reversion of his edit. enochlau (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transposes
In the Problem Input section, shouldn`t it be the transpose of -c, and not -c? Perhaps I am missing something, in which case I apologize. --Tomas
