Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Branch & bound for not everywhere defined constraints

Dan Zuras Intervals schrieb:

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:41:44 -0500
From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Branch & bound for not everywhere defined constraints

Please see my inserted comments.

Baker

Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:53:16 -0400
From: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Branch & bound for not everywhere defiend constraints
To: STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.
.
.

	As I said, no computers were harmed in this process
	so even this order may have problems.

	What do you think now?  Am I there yet?

	That's what I get for wetware compiling. :-)


 From what I gather in this mostly 3-way exchange between
Nate, Arnold, and Dan, there are various implementations of the
branch and bound algorithm depending upon whether we have
multiple NaI or not, and the main issue is one of efficiency.


	Nate & I mostly.  I haven't heard from Arnold yet.
	Nate is teaching me about branch & bound & I ask
	about different approaches.  It is all very
	entertaining. :-)


I am not in favor of NaI; I can't see any use for it that cannot
be achieved as well or better without NaI, and I hope my
contributions to this thread have shown this.



	Still, Vincent & I could not work out the details.
	I would propose some status flags like empty,
	non-singleton, infinite width, half a dozen NaIs, &
	some other things I could look up in my notes if you
	like.


``infinte width'' is the same as ``unbounded''; the latter is
much more used.


Arnold Neumaier