You are on page 1of 23

2015
Title: Linear
Programming
Student: Chin Pei Foo
Class: 5N

Page | 1

Content
Index
Title
Content
Pierre de Fermat
Definition
Sheep farming
Box
Rush Hours
Linear Programming
Daily life example of LP
Further exploration
Graph
Cabinet
Conclusion

Page
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
12
14
16
17
18
21

Pierre de Fermat
Page | 2

## Pierre de Fermat (French: [pj dfma]; 17[2] August 1601 12

January 1665) was a French lawyer at the Parlement of Toulouse, France,
and a mathematician who is given credit for early developments that led
to infinitesimal calculus, including his technique of adequality. In
particular, he is recognized for his discovery of an original method of
finding the greatest and the smallest ordinates of curved lines, which is
analogous to that of the differential calculus, then unknown, and his
research into number theory. He made notable contributions to analytic
geometry, probability, and optics. He is best known for Fermat's Last
Theorem, which he described in a note at the margin of a copy of
Diophantus' Arithmetica.
Pierre de Fermat developed the technique of adequality (adaequalitas in Latin) to calculate
maxima and minima of functions, tangents to curves, area, center of mass, least action, and
other problems in mathematical analysis. According to Andr Weil, Fermat "introduces the
technical term adaequalitas, adaequare, etc., which he says he has borrowed from
Diophantus. As Diophantus V.11 shows, it means an approximate equality, and this is indeed
how Fermat explains the word in one of his later writings." (Weil 1973).[1] Diophantus coined
the word (parisots) to refer to an approximate equality.[2] Claude Gaspard Bachet
de Mziriac translated Diophantus's Greek word into Latin as adaequalitas.[citation needed] Paul
Tannery's French translation of Fermats Latin treatises on maxima and minima used the
Fermat used adequality first to find maxima of functions, and then adapted it to find tangent
lines to curves.
To find the maximum of a term

## , Fermat equated (or more precisely adequated)

and
and after doing algebra he could cancel out a factor of and then discard any
remaining terms involving To illustrate the method by Fermat's own example, consider the
problem of finding the maximum of

with

to

## Canceling terms and dividing by Fermat arrived at

Removing the terms that contained Fermat arrived at the desired result that the maximum
occurred when

Fermat also used his principle to give a mathematical derivation of Snell's laws of refraction
directly from the principle that light takes the quickest path

Page | 3

Definiti
on

ii)Global maximum
A global maximum, also known as
an absolute maximum , the
largest overall value of a set ,
function , etc , over its entire
range
Global minimum
A global minimum , also known as
an absolute minimum , is the
smallest overall value of a set ,
function , etc , over its entire
range .

a)i)mathematical
optimization
An act, process or
methodology of making
something ( as a design ,
system , or decision ) as fully
perfect , functional , or
specifically : the
mathematical procedure ( as
finding the maximum of a
function

## III) Local minimum:

It is the least value that locates
within a set of points which may or
may not be global minium and it is
not the lowest value in the entire
set. It can also be termed a
Relative Minimum
Local Maximum
It can also be expressed as
Relative Maximum . It is a
greatest value in a set of points but
not hihest when compared to all
values in a set . The set of points
can be global maximum

Page | 4

Page | 5

## Decide whether you're going to find the maximum value or

minimum value. It's either one or the other, you're not going to find
both. The maximum or minimum value of a quadratic function occurs at
its vertex.
For y = ax2 + bx + c,
(c - b2/4a) gives the y-value (or the value of the function) at its vertex.

## If the value of a is positive then the

vertex will be minimum value

## If the value of a is negative then the

vertex will be maximum value

## The value of a cant be zero ,

otherwise we woudnt be dealing
Example

f(x)

F(x)=x^2+x+1
A=1 b=1 c=1
a>0 , therefore y is a minimum value
ymin=c-b^2/2a

Ymin

ymin=1-1^2/2
ymin=3/4

Page | 6

is in the form
y = a(x-h)22 + k

For y = a(x-h)2
+ k,
k is the value
of the
function at its
vertex.
k gives us the
maximum or
minimum value
accordingly as
a is negative or
positive
respectively.

3)Using
differentiation
when the
the form
y = ax^2 +
bx + c
1
1)Differentiat
e y with
respect to x.
dy/dx = 2ax +
b
2)Determine
the
differentiation
point values
in terms of
dy/dx.
3)Substitute
this value of x
into y to get
the
minimum/max
imum point.

Other
metho
ds
Page | 7

Example
Method 2
F(x)=x^2+x+1
F(x)=(x-1/2)^2-1/4+z
F(x)=(x-1/2)^2+3/4
Minimum value =3/4

Method3
F(x)=x^2+x+1
Dy/dx=2ax+b
Dy/Dx=2X+1
Dy/Dx=0 (because minimum value gradient = 0)
2X+1=0
X=1/2
Substitute x into equation
Y=3/4

Conclusion
I never know there are so many ways to find the maximum value of a
quadratic equation especially the differentiate part . It is happy to find the
more uses of differentiating . In these 3 methods , they are equally useful ,
I may want to try to use the differentiating method because it could help
me master differentiate topic .

Page | 8

Part 2(a)

y
Length ,x

Width ,y

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

47.5
45
42.5
40
37.5
35
32.5
30
27.5
25
22.5
20
17.5
15
12.5
10
7.5
5
2.5
0

Perimeter(2X+4
y)
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200

Area , m^2
237.5
450
637.5
800
937.5
1050
1137.5
1200
1237.5
1250
1237.5
1200
1137.5
1050
937.5
800
637.5
450
237.5
0

From this table , we can see dimension that can maximize the barn is 50 m x 25
m which gives total area of 1250 m
Or
2X + 4 y = 200
-X + 50
Y=25
Y=(200 2 X ) / 4
-X + 50

A= XY
(1)

=((200 2 X ) / 4 ) X

dy/dx=
0=

= ( -2X^2 + 200X ) / 4
X=50
= - X^2 +50X

sub x

Page | 9

b)
h
30-

30-2h

## Volume=length x width x height

= (30-2h) x (30-2h) x h
= h(4h^2 120h + 1900)
= 4h ^3 120 h^ 2 + 900 h
Differentiate the volume
Dv/Dh = 12 h ^2 240 h + 900
Let Dv/ Dh = 0
12 h ^2 240 h + 900=0
H^2-20 h + 75 = 0
(h-15) ( h 5) = 0
H = 15 ( rejected ) h =5 ( accepted )

Volume
Substitute h = 5 into V = = 4h ^3 120 h^ 2 + 900 h
V=4(5)^3-120(5)^2 + 900 (5)
V max = 2000 cm ^ 3

Page | 10

Part 3
P(t)=-1800 cos ( n/6 x t) + 1800
P(t) = visitor , t= time
1.graph function of p(t)
t

P(t
)

093
0
0
0

103
0
1
241.
2

113
0
2
900

123
0
3
180
0

133
0
4
270
0

143
0
5
335
9

153
0
6
360
0

163
0
7
335
8

173
0
8
269
9

183
0
9
179
9

193
0
10
899

203
0
11
240

213
0
12
0

223
0
13
242

233
0
14
901

## P(t) against hours

4000

3500

3000

2500

P(t)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

10

12

14

16

Hours

Page | 11

003
0
15
180
2

II)The peak hour reach at 1530 / 3.30 p.m , number of visitor on that hour
are 3600 visitor

## III) AT 7. 30 P.M , T=10

P(10) = -1800 cos ( n/6 x 10 ) + 1800
P(10) = 900 Visitor

IV)P(t) = 2570
-1800 cos ( n/6 x T ) + 1800 = 2570
-1800 cos ( n /6 x T) = 770
Cos ( n/6 x T) = -77/180
n/6 x T = 2
T=2x6/n
T = 3.84 hours
3.84 hours = 3 hour + ( 0.84 x 60)
=3 hour 50 min
0930 + 3 hour 50 min = 1320

Page | 12

Linear programming
Linear programming (LP; also called linear optimization) is a method to achieve the best
outcome (such as maximum profit or lowest cost) in a mathematical model whose
requirements are represented by linear relationships. Linear programming is a special case of
mathematical programming (mathematical optimization).
More formally, linear programming is a technique for the optimization of a linear objective
function, subject to linear equality and linear inequality constraints. Its feasible region is a
convex polytope, which is a set defined as the intersection of finitely many half spaces, each
of which is defined by a linear inequality. Its objective function is a real-valued affine
function defined on this polyhedron. A linear programming algorithm finds a point in the
polyhedron where this function has the smallest (or largest) value if such a point exists.
Linear programs are problems that can be expressed in canonical form:

where x represents the vector of variables (to be determined), c and b are vectors of (known)
coefficients, A is a (known) matrix of coefficients, and
is the matrix transpose. The
expression to be maximized or minimized is called the objective function (cTx in this case).
The inequalities Ax b and x 0 are the constraints which specify a convex polytope over
which the objective function is to be optimized. In this context, two vectors are comparable
when they have the same dimensions. If every entry in the first is less-than or equal-to the
corresponding entry in the second then we can say the first vector is less-than or equal-to the
second vector.
Linear programming can be applied to various fields of study. It is used in business and
economics, but can also be utilized for some engineering problems. Industries that use linear
programming models include transportation, energy, telecommunications, and manufacturing.
It has proved useful in modeling diverse types of problems in planning, routing, scheduling,
assignment, and design.

Page | 13

History
The problem of solving a system of linear inequalities dates back at least as far as Fourier,
who in 1827 published a method for solving them,[1] and after whom the method of Fourier
Motzkin elimination is named.
The first linear programming formulation of a problem that is equivalent to the general linear
programming problem was given by Leonid Kantorovich in 1939, who also proposed a
method for solving it.[2] He developed it during World War II as a way to plan expenditures
and returns so as to reduce costs to the army and increase losses incurred by the enemy.
About the same time as Kantorovich, the Dutch-American economist T. C. Koopmans
formulated classical economic problems as linear programs. Kantorovich and Koopmans later
shared the 1975 Nobel prize in economics.[1] In 1941, Frank Lauren Hitchcock also
formulated transportation problems as linear programs and gave a solution very similar to the
later Simplex method;[2] Hitchcock had died in 1957 and the Nobel prize is not awarded
posthumously.
During 1946-1947, George B. Dantzig independently developed general linear programming
formulation to use for planning problems in US Air Force. In 1947, Dantzig also invented the
simplex method that for the first time efficiently tackled the linear programming problem in
most cases. When Dantzig arranged meeting with John von Neumann to discuss his Simplex
method, Neumann immediately conjectured the theory of duality by realizing that the
problem he had been working in game theory was equivalent. Dantzig provided formal proof
in an unpublished report "A Theorem on Linear Inequalities" on January 5, 1948.[3] Postwar,
many industries found its use in their daily planning.
Dantzig's original example was to find the best assignment of 70 people to 70 jobs. The
computing power required to test all the permutations to select the best assignment is vast;
the number of possible configurations exceeds the number of particles in the observable
universe. However, it takes only a moment to find the optimum solution by posing the
problem as a linear program and applying the simplex algorithm. The theory behind linear
programming drastically reduces the number of possible solutions that must be checked.
The linear-programming problem was first shown to be solvable in polynomial time by
Leonid Khachiyan in 1979, but a larger theoretical and practical breakthrough in the field
came in 1984 when Narendra Karmarkar introduced a new interior-point method for solving
linear-programming problems.

Page | 14

A Diet Problem
Suppose the only foods available in your local store are potatoes and steak. The
economic considerations. We have the nutritional and cost information in the
following table:
Per unit
of potatoes

Per unit
of steak

Minimum
requirements

Units of carbohydrates

Units of vitamins

19

Units of proteins

Unit cost

25

50

The problem is to find a diet (a choice of the numbers of units of the two foods) that meets all
minimum nutritional requirements at minimal cost.
a. Formulate the problem in terms of linear inequalities and an objective
function.
b. Solve the problem geometrically.
c. Explain how the 2:1 cost ratio (steak to potatoes) dictates that the solution
must be where you said it is.
d. Find a cost ratio that would move the optimal solution to a different choice
of numbers of food units, but that would still require buying both steak and
potatoes.
e. Find a cost ratio that would dictate buying only one of the two foods in
order to minimize cost.

a) We begin by setting the constraints for the problem. The first constraint represents the
minimum requirement for carbohydrates, which is 8 units per some unknown amount of time.
3 units can be consumed per unit of potatoes and 1 unit can be consumed per unit of steak.
The second constraint represents the minimum requirement for vitamins, which is 19 units. 4
units can be consumed per unit of potatoes and 3 units can be consumed per unit of steak. The
third constraint represents the minimum requirement for proteins, which is 7 units. 1 unit can
be consumed per unit of potatoes and 3 units can be consumed per unit of steak. The fourth

Page | 15

and fifth constraints represent the fact that all feasible solutions must be nonnegative because
constraints:
{3X + Y 8, 4X+ 3Y 19, X+ 3Y 7, X 0, Y 0};
Next we plot the solution set of the inequalities to produce a feasible region of possibilities.
c) The 2:1 cost ratio of steak to potatoes dictates that the solution must be here since, as a
whole, we can see that one unit of steak is slightly less nutritious than one unit of potatoes.
Plus, in the one category where steak beats potatoes in healthiness (proteins), only 7 total
units are necessary. Thus it is easier to fulfill these units without buying a significant amout
of steak. Since steak is more expensive, buying more potatoes to fulfill these nutritional
requirements is more logical.
d) Now we choose a new cost ratio that will move the optimal solution to a different choice
of numbers of food units. Both steak and potatoes will still be purchased, but a different
solution will be found. Let's try a 5:2 cost ratio.
d) Now we choose a new cost ratio that will move the optimal solution to a different choice
of numbers of food units. Both steak and potatoes will still be purchased, but a different
solution will be found. Let's try a 5:2 cost ratio.
d) Now we choose a new cost ratio that will move the optimal solution to a different choice
of numbers of food units. Both steak and potatoes will still be purchased, but a different
solution will be found. Let's try a 5:2 cost ratio.
Thus, the optimal solution for this cost ratio is buying 8 steaks and no potatoes per unit time
to meet the minimum nutritional requirements.

A Blending Problem
Bryant's Pizza, Inc. is a producer of frozen pizza products. The company makes a
net income of \$1.00 for each regular pizza and \$1.50 for each deluxe pizza
produced. The firm currently has 150 pounds of dough mix and 50 pounds of
topping mix. Each regular pizza uses 1 pound of dough mix and 4 ounces (16
ounces= 1 pound) of topping mix. Each deluxe pizza uses 1 pound of dough mix
and 8 ounces of topping mix. Based on the past demand per week, Bryant can
sell at least 50 regular pizzas and at least 25 deluxe pizzas. The problem is to
determine the number of regular and deluxe pizzas the company should make to
maximize net income. Formulate this problem as an LP problem.

Let X and Y be the number of regular and deluxe pizza, then the LP formulation is:

Page | 16

Maximize X + 1.5 Y
Subject to:
X + Y 150
0.25 X + 0.5 Y 50
X 50
Y 25
X 0, Y 0

b) Further exploration
Cabinet X

Cabinet Y

Cost (RM)

100

200

Space(M^2)

0.6

0.8

Volume ( M^2)

0.8

1.2

X:2

Y:3

X/Y 2/3
Y 3 /2 X

X + 2Y 14

Page | 17

3X + 4Y 36

Graph

Page | 18

## II) Volume = 0.8 X + 1.2 y

Page | 19

We need to find the value of x and y that maximize the space of cabinet
First method = simultaneous equation
Let x + 2y = 14 (2)
X = 14 2y

3x + 14 y = 36 (1)

(3)

## Substitute (4) into ( 3)

3(14 2y) + 4y = 36

x= 14 2 (3)

42 6y + 4y = 36

x= 8

2y = 6
Y =3

(4)

## Then substitute x = 8 , y = 3 into V = 0.8 x + 1.2 y

Area = 0.8(8) + 1.2 (3)
= 10 m^3

Page | 20

## Then substitute x = 8 , y = 3 into V = 0.8 x + 1.2 y

Area = 0.8(8) + 1.2 (3) = 10 m^3
III) Area = 0.6 X + 0.8 Y

Page | 21

## Cost = 100 x + 200y

Volume = 0.8 x + 1.2 y

Combination

Area(m^2)

Volume ( m^2)

Cost (RM)

6.4

9.2

1400

6.2

8.8

1300

6.8

9.6

1400

6.6

9.2

1300

7.2

10.0

1400

7.0

9.6

1300

## IV) If I were Aaron , I would chose combination E ( x = 8 , y = 3 ) because

the cost RM 1400 and it also maximize the area 7.2m ^ 2 and volume 10
m ^ 3 with high number of combination of cabinet 11

Conclusion

Page | 22

I learn a lot from doing this project especially in linear programming . After
learning linear programming , I learnt there are actually ways to help in
deciding my daily option . Linear programming could help me decide the
best choice under the best condition . I also learnt that nowadays there
are technology called graphic calculator that can help generate a graph by
just typing some few equation . If I did not do this project , I will never
know the existence of this fascinating creation . It could help me solve
some graphic question in both math and add maths .I also learned the
history and hard works of mathematician in investigating to find all these ways to
solve question. Hence , I find the usefulness of internet. A lot of information can
be found through internet. In this project , I feel like I am an investigator to find
treasure on the internet .

Resource
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Fermat