Integer Linear Programming: Sum of Products of Binary Variables

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Given four sets of binary variables $x_1..N$, $y_1..N$, $v_1..N$, and $w_1..N$ such that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$, I need to linearize the following constraint:



$Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i leq Sigma_i=1^N v_i w_i$.



All binary variables have value in $0, 1$. This constraints means that if for an $i in 1,.., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, then for a $j in 1,.., N$, it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$. In other words, if the dot product of vectors $textbfx$ and $textbfy$ is one, then the dot product of vectors $textbfv$ and $textbfw$ must also be 1 (based on the assumption in the first line, all vectors $textbfx$, $textbfy$, $textbfv$, and $textbfw$ are unit vectors in $R^N$).



1. Approach 1



I know that I can introduce for each $i$, a new variable $alpha_i$ to mean that $alpha_i = x_i y_i$ by the following constraints:



$alpha_i leq x_i$



$alpha_i leq y_i$



$alpha_i ge x_i + y_i -1$,



and, in a similar manner, introduce a new variable $beta_i$ to mean $beta_i = v_i w_i$, and, finally, replace the original constraint by the following:



$Sigma_i=1^N alpha_i leq Sigma_i=1^N beta_i$.



The problem of this approach is that it considerably slows down my program implemented in cplex.



I need to use a different approach that is faster than this.



thanks



2. Approach 2



One other approach was to introduce only two new binary variables $lambda$ and $xi$, whose values are in $0, 1$ and restricted by the following constraints:



$lambda ge x_i+y_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$



$xi ge v_i+w_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$,



Accordingly, the original constraint is formulated by the following constraint:



$lambda leq xi$.



This approach is extremely faster than the first approach, but it works only for one case, where for an $i in 1,..., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, which enforces that it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$ for a $j in 1, ..., N$. For the other case, where for no $i$, it holds that $x_i = y_i = 1$, the value of $lambda$ is not constrained to by 0, and so it makes problem.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • It is not clear - the binary values can be negative or only (0,1)?
    – Moti
    Aug 25 at 4:49










  • each binary variable is either 0 or 1
    – hrsc
    Aug 25 at 4:52














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Given four sets of binary variables $x_1..N$, $y_1..N$, $v_1..N$, and $w_1..N$ such that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$, I need to linearize the following constraint:



$Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i leq Sigma_i=1^N v_i w_i$.



All binary variables have value in $0, 1$. This constraints means that if for an $i in 1,.., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, then for a $j in 1,.., N$, it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$. In other words, if the dot product of vectors $textbfx$ and $textbfy$ is one, then the dot product of vectors $textbfv$ and $textbfw$ must also be 1 (based on the assumption in the first line, all vectors $textbfx$, $textbfy$, $textbfv$, and $textbfw$ are unit vectors in $R^N$).



1. Approach 1



I know that I can introduce for each $i$, a new variable $alpha_i$ to mean that $alpha_i = x_i y_i$ by the following constraints:



$alpha_i leq x_i$



$alpha_i leq y_i$



$alpha_i ge x_i + y_i -1$,



and, in a similar manner, introduce a new variable $beta_i$ to mean $beta_i = v_i w_i$, and, finally, replace the original constraint by the following:



$Sigma_i=1^N alpha_i leq Sigma_i=1^N beta_i$.



The problem of this approach is that it considerably slows down my program implemented in cplex.



I need to use a different approach that is faster than this.



thanks



2. Approach 2



One other approach was to introduce only two new binary variables $lambda$ and $xi$, whose values are in $0, 1$ and restricted by the following constraints:



$lambda ge x_i+y_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$



$xi ge v_i+w_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$,



Accordingly, the original constraint is formulated by the following constraint:



$lambda leq xi$.



This approach is extremely faster than the first approach, but it works only for one case, where for an $i in 1,..., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, which enforces that it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$ for a $j in 1, ..., N$. For the other case, where for no $i$, it holds that $x_i = y_i = 1$, the value of $lambda$ is not constrained to by 0, and so it makes problem.







share|cite|improve this question






















  • It is not clear - the binary values can be negative or only (0,1)?
    – Moti
    Aug 25 at 4:49










  • each binary variable is either 0 or 1
    – hrsc
    Aug 25 at 4:52












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Given four sets of binary variables $x_1..N$, $y_1..N$, $v_1..N$, and $w_1..N$ such that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$, I need to linearize the following constraint:



$Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i leq Sigma_i=1^N v_i w_i$.



All binary variables have value in $0, 1$. This constraints means that if for an $i in 1,.., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, then for a $j in 1,.., N$, it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$. In other words, if the dot product of vectors $textbfx$ and $textbfy$ is one, then the dot product of vectors $textbfv$ and $textbfw$ must also be 1 (based on the assumption in the first line, all vectors $textbfx$, $textbfy$, $textbfv$, and $textbfw$ are unit vectors in $R^N$).



1. Approach 1



I know that I can introduce for each $i$, a new variable $alpha_i$ to mean that $alpha_i = x_i y_i$ by the following constraints:



$alpha_i leq x_i$



$alpha_i leq y_i$



$alpha_i ge x_i + y_i -1$,



and, in a similar manner, introduce a new variable $beta_i$ to mean $beta_i = v_i w_i$, and, finally, replace the original constraint by the following:



$Sigma_i=1^N alpha_i leq Sigma_i=1^N beta_i$.



The problem of this approach is that it considerably slows down my program implemented in cplex.



I need to use a different approach that is faster than this.



thanks



2. Approach 2



One other approach was to introduce only two new binary variables $lambda$ and $xi$, whose values are in $0, 1$ and restricted by the following constraints:



$lambda ge x_i+y_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$



$xi ge v_i+w_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$,



Accordingly, the original constraint is formulated by the following constraint:



$lambda leq xi$.



This approach is extremely faster than the first approach, but it works only for one case, where for an $i in 1,..., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, which enforces that it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$ for a $j in 1, ..., N$. For the other case, where for no $i$, it holds that $x_i = y_i = 1$, the value of $lambda$ is not constrained to by 0, and so it makes problem.







share|cite|improve this question














Given four sets of binary variables $x_1..N$, $y_1..N$, $v_1..N$, and $w_1..N$ such that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$, I need to linearize the following constraint:



$Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i leq Sigma_i=1^N v_i w_i$.



All binary variables have value in $0, 1$. This constraints means that if for an $i in 1,.., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, then for a $j in 1,.., N$, it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$. In other words, if the dot product of vectors $textbfx$ and $textbfy$ is one, then the dot product of vectors $textbfv$ and $textbfw$ must also be 1 (based on the assumption in the first line, all vectors $textbfx$, $textbfy$, $textbfv$, and $textbfw$ are unit vectors in $R^N$).



1. Approach 1



I know that I can introduce for each $i$, a new variable $alpha_i$ to mean that $alpha_i = x_i y_i$ by the following constraints:



$alpha_i leq x_i$



$alpha_i leq y_i$



$alpha_i ge x_i + y_i -1$,



and, in a similar manner, introduce a new variable $beta_i$ to mean $beta_i = v_i w_i$, and, finally, replace the original constraint by the following:



$Sigma_i=1^N alpha_i leq Sigma_i=1^N beta_i$.



The problem of this approach is that it considerably slows down my program implemented in cplex.



I need to use a different approach that is faster than this.



thanks



2. Approach 2



One other approach was to introduce only two new binary variables $lambda$ and $xi$, whose values are in $0, 1$ and restricted by the following constraints:



$lambda ge x_i+y_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$



$xi ge v_i+w_i-1 ;;;;;;;;;;;; , forall iin 1,...,N$,



Accordingly, the original constraint is formulated by the following constraint:



$lambda leq xi$.



This approach is extremely faster than the first approach, but it works only for one case, where for an $i in 1,..., N$, it holds that $x_i=y_i=1$, which enforces that it must hold that $v_j=w_j=1$ for a $j in 1, ..., N$. For the other case, where for no $i$, it holds that $x_i = y_i = 1$, the value of $lambda$ is not constrained to by 0, and so it makes problem.









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 25 at 5:25

























asked Aug 25 at 3:28









hrsc

11




11











  • It is not clear - the binary values can be negative or only (0,1)?
    – Moti
    Aug 25 at 4:49










  • each binary variable is either 0 or 1
    – hrsc
    Aug 25 at 4:52
















  • It is not clear - the binary values can be negative or only (0,1)?
    – Moti
    Aug 25 at 4:49










  • each binary variable is either 0 or 1
    – hrsc
    Aug 25 at 4:52















It is not clear - the binary values can be negative or only (0,1)?
– Moti
Aug 25 at 4:49




It is not clear - the binary values can be negative or only (0,1)?
– Moti
Aug 25 at 4:49












each binary variable is either 0 or 1
– hrsc
Aug 25 at 4:52




each binary variable is either 0 or 1
– hrsc
Aug 25 at 4:52










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Your second approach makes no sense to me. With only two new binary variables, the best you will be able to determine is whether any product $x_i y_i = 1$, not how many such products equal 1.



In the first approach, did you give the $alpha_i$ the domain $[0,1]$ (i.e., make them continuous variables)? I would not expect that to slow the solution very much. Those variables do not need to be declared integer-valued. It is possible that, by branching on them early, CPLEX might solve the problem faster, but my experience is that fewer integer variables is usually better.



Regarding the first approach, I believe you could omit the constraints $alpha_i le x_i$, $alpha_i le y_i$ and $beta_i ge v_i + w_i - 1$. This would allow the solver to set $alpha_i = 1$ when either $x_i$ or $y_i$ was 0, and would let it set $beta_i = 0$ when both $u_i$ and $v_i$ were 1, but the original constraint $sum_i x_i y_i le sum_i u_i v_i$ would still be met: at least as many $alpha_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the left, and at most as many $beta_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the right.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:27










  • With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:34










  • As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:46










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2893783%2finteger-linear-programming-sum-of-products-of-binary-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













Your second approach makes no sense to me. With only two new binary variables, the best you will be able to determine is whether any product $x_i y_i = 1$, not how many such products equal 1.



In the first approach, did you give the $alpha_i$ the domain $[0,1]$ (i.e., make them continuous variables)? I would not expect that to slow the solution very much. Those variables do not need to be declared integer-valued. It is possible that, by branching on them early, CPLEX might solve the problem faster, but my experience is that fewer integer variables is usually better.



Regarding the first approach, I believe you could omit the constraints $alpha_i le x_i$, $alpha_i le y_i$ and $beta_i ge v_i + w_i - 1$. This would allow the solver to set $alpha_i = 1$ when either $x_i$ or $y_i$ was 0, and would let it set $beta_i = 0$ when both $u_i$ and $v_i$ were 1, but the original constraint $sum_i x_i y_i le sum_i u_i v_i$ would still be met: at least as many $alpha_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the left, and at most as many $beta_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the right.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:27










  • With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:34










  • As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:46














up vote
0
down vote













Your second approach makes no sense to me. With only two new binary variables, the best you will be able to determine is whether any product $x_i y_i = 1$, not how many such products equal 1.



In the first approach, did you give the $alpha_i$ the domain $[0,1]$ (i.e., make them continuous variables)? I would not expect that to slow the solution very much. Those variables do not need to be declared integer-valued. It is possible that, by branching on them early, CPLEX might solve the problem faster, but my experience is that fewer integer variables is usually better.



Regarding the first approach, I believe you could omit the constraints $alpha_i le x_i$, $alpha_i le y_i$ and $beta_i ge v_i + w_i - 1$. This would allow the solver to set $alpha_i = 1$ when either $x_i$ or $y_i$ was 0, and would let it set $beta_i = 0$ when both $u_i$ and $v_i$ were 1, but the original constraint $sum_i x_i y_i le sum_i u_i v_i$ would still be met: at least as many $alpha_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the left, and at most as many $beta_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the right.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:27










  • With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:34










  • As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:46












up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









Your second approach makes no sense to me. With only two new binary variables, the best you will be able to determine is whether any product $x_i y_i = 1$, not how many such products equal 1.



In the first approach, did you give the $alpha_i$ the domain $[0,1]$ (i.e., make them continuous variables)? I would not expect that to slow the solution very much. Those variables do not need to be declared integer-valued. It is possible that, by branching on them early, CPLEX might solve the problem faster, but my experience is that fewer integer variables is usually better.



Regarding the first approach, I believe you could omit the constraints $alpha_i le x_i$, $alpha_i le y_i$ and $beta_i ge v_i + w_i - 1$. This would allow the solver to set $alpha_i = 1$ when either $x_i$ or $y_i$ was 0, and would let it set $beta_i = 0$ when both $u_i$ and $v_i$ were 1, but the original constraint $sum_i x_i y_i le sum_i u_i v_i$ would still be met: at least as many $alpha_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the left, and at most as many $beta_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the right.






share|cite|improve this answer












Your second approach makes no sense to me. With only two new binary variables, the best you will be able to determine is whether any product $x_i y_i = 1$, not how many such products equal 1.



In the first approach, did you give the $alpha_i$ the domain $[0,1]$ (i.e., make them continuous variables)? I would not expect that to slow the solution very much. Those variables do not need to be declared integer-valued. It is possible that, by branching on them early, CPLEX might solve the problem faster, but my experience is that fewer integer variables is usually better.



Regarding the first approach, I believe you could omit the constraints $alpha_i le x_i$, $alpha_i le y_i$ and $beta_i ge v_i + w_i - 1$. This would allow the solver to set $alpha_i = 1$ when either $x_i$ or $y_i$ was 0, and would let it set $beta_i = 0$ when both $u_i$ and $v_i$ were 1, but the original constraint $sum_i x_i y_i le sum_i u_i v_i$ would still be met: at least as many $alpha_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the left, and at most as many $beta_i$ would be 1 as the number of unit products on the right.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 27 at 22:30









prubin

1,294125




1,294125











  • I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:27










  • With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:34










  • As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:46
















  • I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:27










  • With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:34










  • As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
    – hrsc
    Aug 28 at 7:46















I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
– hrsc
Aug 28 at 7:27




I appreciate your help. I made the variables to be continuous, which made nearly a 60% of speed improvement for a few instances I checked. But, I am not sure if this change will always return feasible integer solutions or not. I need to check more.
– hrsc
Aug 28 at 7:27












With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
– hrsc
Aug 28 at 7:34




With respect to your suggestion for the first approach, I am not sure why omitting those constraints you mentioned should work. But, one thing about the variables is that for each i, at most one product of $x_i y_i$ has the value 1, and at most one product of $v_i w_i$ is equal to 1 given that $Sigma_i=1^N x_i = Sigma_i=1^N y_i = Sigma_i=1^N v_i = Sigma_i=1^N w_i = 1$.
– hrsc
Aug 28 at 7:34












As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
– hrsc
Aug 28 at 7:46




As I said, the second approach works only in certain cases, but for some instance I have checked, it takes less than 1% of time spent by the first approach. It would be good if it was possible to put some simple constraints imposing upper bounds on $lambda$ and $xi$ to make them have the precise meanings of $Sigma_i=1^N x_i y_i$ and $Sigma_i=1^N v_i y_i$, respectively.
– hrsc
Aug 28 at 7:46

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2893783%2finteger-linear-programming-sum-of-products-of-binary-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

Carbon dioxide