Now we are all set to solve an LPP

Step I: Convert the LP into standard form. This means:

(i) All inequalities must be transformed to equations
(ii) All variables must be non-negative.(Recall the technique of transforming described if this is violated)
Step II: See if the Constraints, all variables & RHS have the folowing structure.
ALL CONSTRAINTS of the type <=
ALL RHS values => 0
ALL VARIABLES >= 0
Example:
Max x1+ 2x2
Subject to
3x1+x2 <=
6
8x1- 3x2 <=
4
x1,x2 >=0
Here both the constraints are <= type and the RHS values namely 6 & 4 are >=0
All variables namely x1 & x2 are non-negative being no of units of products 1 & 2.
Example:
Min x1+3x2
Subject to
x1+x2 >= 7
8x1- 3x2 <=
4
Here the conditions stated are violated as we have a => constraint.
If the condition that all constraints are of <= , all variables >= 0 and RHS values >=0, then we have
an OBVIOUS BASIC FEASIBLE SOLUTION.
That is in geometric sense, the Origin forms part of the feasible region.
Forcing all the decision variables to 0. That is they form the set of Non-Basic Variables
The set of slack variables for the basic variables.
Thus we have an obvious Basic Feasible Solution.
Note: Since the LP in standard form for the
problem with the above structure would have in
each constraint ONE SLACK VARIABLE, the LPP
would have in all m slack variables. As these form
the set of Basic Variables, we would have m basic
variables. This satisfies the reqiurement of m basic
& n-m non basic variables for the Basic Feasible

If the LPP does not have such a structure of all constraints of <= type
with all RHS values >= 0, or all variables >=0, then we need to do some addditional work.
The discussions regarding additional work we would postpone for a while.
Now, for the case of all constraints <=, all variables >=0 and all RHS values >= 0, we continue
STEP III.

Draw what is known as the SIMPLEX TABLE, which looks as follows:

cj
Basis
s1

Cb

x1

x2

..
.
s1
s2

..

sm

Solution

s2
s3
..
sm
zj-cj
Now we are set to start executing the Simplex Alg.
We would take an example and illustrate the mechanics of the algorithm.
Before that, the anatomy of the Simplex Table, shown above needs elaboration.
This row is for the coefficients of each
variable in the objective function.
cj
Basis

Cb

x1

x2

..
.
s1
s2

..

sm

Solution

This column titled as

Solution has the values
of the basic variables.

zj-cj
The column titled as Basis lists the set of basic
variables for that particular iteration.

This column titled as Cb refers to the coefficient of the

basic variables in the objective function.

This cell has the value of

the Objective Function
corresponding the BFS
represented by the table.

The next set of rows titled as x1, x2.. S1, s2.. sm are for
the coeffiient of the variables in the system of
simultaneous equations.

This row called as zj-cj (or) Networth Row (or) Outgoing Incoming gives the net of "What we loose - What we
gain" in the objective function for unit increase in the
value of each of the variables.(thus it has one cell for
each variable)

From now the term Basic Feasible Solution would be abbreviated as BFS

Illsutration of the Algorithm:

As mentioned earlier, the algorirthm scans one BFS after another until Opt Soln is reached
Or Report Infeasibility/Unboundedness.

In the above process, it moves from one Corner Point to an adjacent Corner Point in a Geometric Sense as illustrated be

R
S
Q

If the first chosen BFS is the one corresponding to the Corner Point P then the sequence is:
P > Q > R OR
P > S > R depending on certain conditions.
(Note: It is clear from the figure with the direction of improvement, R is the optimal soln.)
You may see, as it moves from P, it goes to Q which is adjacent to P a
nd then to R which is adjacent to Q.
Now, the question is: As the algorithm has to work with algebra how is the concept of adjacent
Corner Point captured.
Result: Two adjacent Corner Points differ only in
one Basic & one Non-Basic variable.

Consider the example of Product Mix which was solved Graphically. Refer to the Graph.
A is an adjacent Corner Point to O
At O, the Basic Variables are: s1, s2 & s3: Non-Basic Variables are : x1 & x2.
At A, the Basic Variables are: x1, s2 & s3: Non-Basic Variables are: s1 & x2.
Constraint 3
3x1+2x2=18

8
7
s2=x1=0

6D

Constraint
2
2x2<=12
s2=s3=0

Constraint 1

x1<=4

4
3

s1=s2=0

Constraint 3
3x1+2x2<=18

1
A

Non-Basic:
x1=x2=0

Non-Basic:
x2=s1=0

Basic:
s1, s2, s3

Basic:
x1, s2, s3

Note: At O, As two variables are at 0 value and we have only 2 Non-Basic Variables,
it has to be true the Non-Basic Variables have got be x1 & x2.

Thus, for two adjacent Corner Points two variables swap their roles:
from Basic to Non-Basic and vice- versa.

Now we commence the algorithm.

We consider the same problem that was solved graphically. This is to enable you to see
both the dimensions, graphical & algrebraic, although the logic can be used for any LPP.
As mentioned earlier, we need to transform the LP into Standard Form
It is:
Max 3x1+5x2+0s1+0s2+0s3
Subject to
x1+
s1
=
4
2x2+
s2
=
12
3x1+ 2x2+
s3
=
18
x1,

x2,

s1,

s2,

s3

=>

First, we have a quick look at the problem.

The Original LP had ALL CONSTRAINTS <=, and ALL RHS >= 0.
Hence, for the LP in Standard Form, we have in each Constraint One SLACK VARIABLE.
Thus, we have 3 SLACK VARIABLES, which is same as the number of Slack Variabels required
(Pl do the analyisis of No of variables = No of Constraints =etc to find this out)
Now, we can force the 2 Decision Variables x1 & x2 = 0 ie treat them as Non-Basic and
the 3 slack variables s1, s2 7 s3 as Basic variables.
In other words, Origin is a CORNER POINT in this case. This means we have an OBVIOUS BFS.
Thus we have an initial BFS to start with.

cj
Basic
s1
s2

Cb
0
0

3
x1
1
0

5
x2
0
2

0
s1
1
0

0
s2
0
1

0
s3 Soln
0
4
0
12

The table has been drawn.

The row of cjs is nothing but the Obje Fun coeffient of e
The Basis Column is the documentation for the list of Ba
we have s1, s2 & s3 (the only 3 non
are the Basic Variables. The remaining are the coefficie
constraints. The last column is the RHS values of the co
The right bottom cell gives the value of teh Objective Fu

s3
zj-cj

Obj Fun value =

18
0

constraints. The last column is the RHS values of the co

The right bottom cell gives the value of teh Objective Fu
BFS.

Reenforcement Note: For an LP with all constriants <= and all RHS >=0
with all variables Non-Negative we have the Origin ie all decision
variables x1=x2..=0. The first table or the initial table will have s1, s2
as the BASIC VARIABLES and x1, x2 as Non-Basic variables.
As teh Non-Bsic Variables by defn are zero valued tey are not
written in the table.

What do you infer so far from the table:

1. The first rwo actually stands for : 1x1+1s1 = 4
As x1 is not listed in the Basis column, it is a non-Baisc Variable and hence 0
Therefor, s1 = 4
2. Using the same logic, s2 = 12
3. The third row implies 3x1+2x2+s3 = 18.
As x1 & x2 are not prenet in the Basis Column, they are Non-Basic Variables and hence 0.
Thus, s3 = 18.
Now, we can generialise this result as:
The Basic Variable listed under Basis Column assumes the value in the Soln Column in the
same row as:
Each rwo representing a constraint equation has ONLY ONE BASIC VARIABLE WITH the
coefficient of 1 and the coefficient of other Basic variables is 0.

Pl check: In Eqn 1, we have 1s1 with 0s2 & 0s3 with s1 in the Basis Column.
In Eqn 2, we have 1 s2 with 0 s1 & 0s3 with s2 in the Basis Column
In Eqn 3, we have 0s1, 0s2 and 1s3 with s3 in teh Basis Colum.
This enables us to simply "read-off" the values of the Basic Variables directly from the
table without any need for computations.
MORAL: "Basic Variable from Basis Column = Value in Soln Column"
Thus,
1. The table gives the values of the Basic Variables.
What about theNon-Basic Variables? As they are 0s by Defn, the table explicitly does
not state this.
2. The bottom right cell gives the Objective Function Value for the BFS represented by
this table. How is this computed?
It is the dot product of the columns Cb & Soln. ie 0*4 + 0*12 + 0*18 = 0.
Why is this so? The Cb Column gives the coefficient of the Basic Variables and the
Soln Col gives the values of these Basic Variables. So the product of these two
columns gives the contribution to the Objective Function from the Basic Variables.
The contribution from the Non-Baisc variables being zer as we need to multiply the
their coefficients with os, we need not bother about them.

The contribution from the Non-Baisc variables being zer as we need to multiply the
their coefficients with os, we need not bother about them.

2. Thus, the value of the objective function is the sum of term by term product of the
columns Cb & Soln.
(For the Initial Table table which has only slack variables as Basic Variables, Obj Fun
Value = 0).

Now we turn our attention to zj-cj row.

In Eqn 1, if we increase x1 from the current level of 0 to 1,

LHS increases by 1. To keep Eqn# 1 balanced, s1 would
reduce by 1.

12

In Eqn 2, If we increase x1 from the current level of 0 to 1,

NO CHANGE NEEDED to keep Eqn #2 balanced.

18

To explain this we repeat the three Equations:

1x1+

s1

2x2+

3x1+ 2x2+

s2

s3

In Eqn 3 If we increase x1 from the current level of 0 to 1,

LHS increases by 3. To keep Equation #3 balanced, s3
would reduce by 3.

Thus, the impact of increasing x1 by 1 is :

s1 decreases by 1
These numbers that refer to the amt
s2 decreases by 0
of decrease in s1, s2 & s3 are cos3 decreases by 3.
efficients of x1 in the 3 eqns!
Thus, the objective function decreases by 1*coefficient of s1+
0*coefficient of s2+
3*coefficient of s3
(by coefficient we mean in teh obje fun).
which is same as :
1* 0+ 0*0 + 3*0 = 0
Or in other words, what we loose in the obj fun is 1*0+0*0+3*0.(L)
What we gain is 3 as coefficient of x1 in the Obj Fun. (G).
Thus, the net of "what we loose -what we gain" is :(L)-(G)
which is -3. This is the zj-cj value under x1.
This is the reason, it is known as "OUTGOING_INCOMING" or "NET WORTH"

How to compute zj-cj:

To compute zj:As we have seen in the illustration, increasing the value of x1 results in decrease
in s1, s2 & s3 given by the coefficients of x1 in the 3 eqns, the out going is the product of
Amt of decrease*contribution per unit. This is same as:
Cb*coefficients of x1 in the x1 coulmn
To compute cj: Already available above x1 in cj row.
So zj-cj is Cb*coefficients of x1 in the x1 coulmn-coefficient of x1 in cj

Now we can compute zj-cj for x2:

Cb

x2
0
0
0

0
2
2

zj = 0*0+0*2+0*2 =0
cj=5
Hence, zj-cj for x2 = 0-5 = -5
For s1, zj-cj =0
Cb
0
0
0

Here zj= 1*0 +0*0+0*0

cj= 0
Hence, zj-cj= 0-0=0

s1
1
0
0

(It is obvious for all Basic Variables because of 1 0 0 structrere, zj-cj= 1* a value - the same value from cj row!)
Thus zj -cj becomes

-3

-5

Question to ponder: Recall the statement made earlier:

In Eqn 3 If we increase x1 from the current level of 0 to 1, to keep Equation #3 balanced,
s3 would reduce by 3. Why don't we consider 2x2 decreasing by 3 or x2 decresaing by
3/2? (Hint: We must have x2>= to reamin feasible abd current value of x2 is 0)

Question to ponder: The coeffficient of the variable whose increase by 1 unit is being
considered reflects the decrease in the basic variable of that equation.
Say in the above case: For Eqn 3
3x1+2x2+s3 = 18:
If x1 is increased, LHS increases by 3. To keep the eqn balanced, s3 must decresae by
3. Thus, the decrease in s3 is same as the coefficient of x1 in that eqn.

The impact of incraese in x1 was so easily answered.

Imagine we we did not have the basic varaible s3 with 1 as the coefficient and teh
coefficiet of the otehr basic variabels as 0 in that eqn. Do you see the difficulty in
determining the impact of increase in x1 on the Basic Variables?

Now we rewrite the table with all entries entered.;

cj
Basic
s1
Iteration 0
s2
s3
zj-cj

Cb
0
0
0

3
x1
1
0
3
-3

5
x2
0
2
2
-5

0
s1
1
0
0
0

0
s2
0
1
0
0

0
s3 Soln
0
4
0
12
1
18
0
0

Determining INCOMING VARIABLE: As the obj fun is 0 for this BFS, we

look for a BFS with a better OBJ FUN Value. This can be achieved by
increasing the value of a Non-Basic Variable from the current level of 0 to
MAXIMUM possible level.

Among the Non-Basic variables, we look for the one with MOST NEGATIVE
value of zj-cj the same indicates, maximum increase in teh OBj Fun for unit
increase in the non-basic variable. In this case it x2.
ie. If we increase the Non-Basic variable x1 by 1, the net of what we loose -what
we gain is- 3. Or we effectively gain 3 units increase in Obj Fun.
Similarly we gain effectively 5 units if we increase x2 by 1.
We do not consider the Basic Variables as we
have them at the max possible value.

To determine the amount of increse to theI ncoming variable:

We see that if x2 increases
Eqn 1 dictates s1 must decrease by 0 (Current value of s1 = 4
Eqn 2 dictates s2 must decrease by 2 (Current Value of s2 = 12)
Eqn 3 dictates s3 must decraese by 2 (Current Valuer of s3 = 18)
Since s1, s2, s3 cannot be decreased below a level of 0, it is clear
Eqn 1 dictates x1 may be increased by any amount.
Eqn 2 dictates x2 may be increased to a maximum of 12/2 = 6
Eqn 3 dictates x2 may be incraesdd to a maximum of 18/2 = 9
Thus eqn 2 is binding and we infer the maximum incraese to x2 is ONLY 6 to ensure Non Negativity of all variables. So we would an increment of 6 to x2. Hence x2 increases to 6 from 0.

To put in formal terms,

Value of incoming variable = Min (Rhs value/coefficient of entering variable)
= Min (infinity, 12/2,18/2) = 6

s1

s2

s3

Now the Minimum which occurs corresponding to s2 meas s2 becoms 0 and LEAVES THE
BASIS.

Now we update the tabel using row reduction of Gauss-Joradan form.

Leaves

cj
Basic Cb
s1
0
s2
0
s3
0
zj-cj

3
x1
1
0
3
-3

5
x2
0
2
2
-5

0
s1
1
0
0
0

0
s2
0
1
0
0

0
s3 Soln
0
4
0
12
1
18
0
0

Ratio
6
9

Min

cj
3
5
0
0
0
Basic Cb
x1
x2
s1
s2
s3 Soln
s1
0
0
1
0
Prev Eqn 2 is
x2
5
0
1
0
1/2
0
6
divided by 2
s3
0
0
1
18
zj-cj
0
0
Question to Ponder: Why do you think the MINmum of the ratios known as MIN RATIO is same as the value of the incoming
variable in the next table? (Hint: See how these ratios are computed based on the equations involved and what the minimum mea
We need to get x2 against x2 as 1 and 0 in the other two rows
To this we need to get 1 from 2. So we divide by 2 to get 1.
Thus we get
0 1 0 1/2 0 6. We can see that x2 getting the value of 6. Now
this row what is known as PIVOT ROW is frozen. This rwo is
used to update the remaining two rows to get teh GaussJordan structure.

Use this row corresponding to x2 to update the ottehr two rows.

As you have learnt Row reduction as part of Numerical Analysis, you should be able to do this.

What we have >>

What we need >>

In 1st row, where s1 is Basic var row, what we have & what we need are shown below:
x1
x2
s1
s2
s3
This is because x2 is now a Basic
s1
1
0
1
0
0
Variable & hence coefficient of x2 in
s1
0
1
0
s1 row has to be 0.
It so happens we already have this as in the original A matrix coefficient of
x2 in row 1 was 0
Hence, no need for any row operation

What we have >>

What we need >>

In 3rd row what we have and what we need are shown below:
x1
x2
s1
s2
s3
s3
3
2
0
0
1
This is because x2 is now basic and its
s3
0
0
1
coefficinet in s3 row has to be 0.
How to get 0 where we have a 2?
Multiply the Pivot Row by -2 and add to the existing
"'what we have " to get "what we need"

"'what we have " to get "what we need"

The above can be taken as a rule. How does it work?

If we have w which has to be made 0, multiply the Pivot row
by -w, as we would get w*1 in the appropriate cell and when
we add to -w , we would get 0.
Pl note you must get the Pivot Row first in the correct form.
ie New Basic Variable's coeficient in the Entering variable
row must be 1.
This is shown once again below:

What we had >>>

x2

x1
0

x2
2

s1
0

s2
1

s3
0

Soln
12

By dividing by 2

What we got >>

Now the three rows after row reduction operations:

cj
3
5
0
0
Basic Cb
x1
x2
s1
s2
s1
0
1
0
1
0
x2
5
0
1
0 1/2
s3
0
3
0
0
-1
zj-cj
-3
0
0 5/2

0
s3 Soln
0
4
0
6
1
6
0 30

Ratio
=4/1 =
4
Not Applicable
=6/3
2
Vector product of Cb & Soln
4*0+6*5+6*0 =30

Note zj-zj row computed using the Vectorroduct of Cb & the respective coulmns - cj
zj-cj

-3

0 5/2

30
0*0+1/2*5+(-1)*0 = -5/2

0*0+5*0+0*3-3 = -3

Note Geometrically we have moved from

x1=0 , x2 = 0 ie O TO
x1 = 0, x2 = 6 ie to D.
So we have now shown that te Alg moves from one Corner
Point to Adjacent Corner Point.

Check for Optimality: Since we still have a zj-cj < 0 (correcsonding to x1)
we ned to proceed.
Now the ENTERING VARIABLE is : x1 (As zj-cj is most -ve for x1
Leaving variable: See the ratios computed.
The raios are:
4 for s1
Not applicable for x2
2 for s3
Min ratio = Min (4,2) = 2 in favour of s3.
So s3 LEAVES
Important Note: The ratios are computed for only the cases where the coefficient of the
enteringnumber in the entering variable is > 0. (ie the denomitor number). This is as a result of the
analysis done earlier. Only if this number is positive, the current Basic Variable would decrease and
we need to see it does not decrease below 0.

Example: We have in the above table

Eqn 1 where s1 is the Basic Variable
x1+s1 = 4 : If x1 increases by 1, LHS increases by 1 & hence s1 decreases by 1. Current s1
value is 4. Hence, x1 can incraese to a mximum of 4.
Eqn 2 where x2 is the Basic Variable
x2+1/2 s2 = 6 : If x1 increases nothing cahnges. So no matter whatever is the increase given
to x1 it does not result in decrease of x2 and hence the question x2 becoming , 0 and violating Non
Negativity does not arise.
For the same reason (that there is no danger of the basic variable becoming -ve), we ignore the case
of -ve coefficients of teh entering variable while finding ratios.

The pivot row now is 3rd row. (x1 is Basic)

What we have>>
x1
What we need >>

x1
3
1

x2
0
0

s1
0
0

s2
-1

s3
1

Soln
6

Row Reduction Operation: We divide the existing Row

by 3 to get "what we need"

cj
Basis Cb
s1
0
x2
5
x1
3
zj-cj

3
x1

5
x2

1
-3

0
0

0
s1

0
s2

0 -1/3
0 5/2

0
s3 Soln

1/3
0

2
30

For the first row: (s1 is Basic )

What we have>>
s1
What we need >>

x1
1
0

x2
0
0

s1
1
1

s2
0

s3
0

Soln
4

Row Reduction Operation: Multiply Pivot Row by -1 and

add to "what we have" to get @
what we need"

For the second row:(x1 is Basic)

What we have>>
x2
What we need >>
x2

x1
0
0

x2
1
1

s1
0
0

s2
1/2

s3
0

Soln
6

Row Reduction Operation reqd: Nil

Now the updated table is:

cj
Basis Cb
s1
0
x2
5
x1
3
zj-cj

3
x1
0
0
1
0

5
x2
0
1
0
0

0
s1
1
0
0
0

0
0
s2
s3 Soln
1/3 -1/3
2
1/2
0
6
-1/3 1/3
2
5/2 1/3
36

WE HAVE MOVED TO C
WHERE
x1=2 & x2 = 6.
Thus, we have illustrated once
again the movement to
ADJACENT Corner Point.

Now since zi-cj => 0 for all the variables we have reached, OPTIMAL SOLUTION !

Reason for conclusion that we have reached the OPTIMAL SOLUTION:

Pl go back and refer the meaning of zj-cj. Each value of zj-cj denotes "what we loose
what we gain" for an unit increase in the Non-Basic variable .
If it is > 0, it reflects we LOOSE MORE THAN WE GAIN. So there is no point in
increasing that Non-Basic Variable.
If this happens for every Non-Basic Variable in teh table it means we can't gain any
further. So we have reached the OPTIMAL SOLN.

Question to ponder: If had shown how zj-cj value gives net of what we loose - what we gain for unit increase
in the Non-Basic Variable.
Thus, in the table befor the Optimal zj-cj for x1 = -3. Or cj-zj = 3.
This implies for every unit increase in x1 Obj Fun would increae by 3.
The MIN RATIO was 2. This means we can increase x1 by 2 units only.
Therefor the incraese in the Objective function due to increase of x1 from 0 to 2 should be 3*2 =6
You may verify this : We had Obj Fun value at 30. It increased to 36.
Do you agree that from zj-cj value of entering variable and the MIN RATIO, we should be able to get the value of OBJ FU
in the next table?

How to SOLVE a MINIMIZATION PROBLEM:

For a MINIMIZATION Problem
Rule for Criterion for Entering variable: Most positive of zj-cj will enter.
Rule for Leaving Variable: NO change in teh MIN RATIO. (Note There is
nothing like Max Ratio)
Test for Optimality:
We must have zj-cj <= 0 for all variables unlike the case of MAXIMIZATION
Problem where we need zj-cj =>0

Question to ponder: In the above box while stating the steps of the algorithm I have reversed the Test for Optimality.
Why do you think the MIN RATIO is unaltered?
Another way to Solve MINIMIZATION PROBLEM:
Convert the Min LPP to Max LPP by multiplying all the obj fun coefficients by
1. Solve this LPP using the alg for Maximizaton problem.
At the end multiply the Obj Fun value by -1.
This is based on the principle Min Z = -Max (-Z)

How to detect Unboundedness:

Recall the concept of MIN RATIO. This is computed to see what is the the maximum increase
we can give to the INCOMING VARIABLE without violating NON-NEGATIVITY.

It is computed as:
Min (Soln Coln number/Entering variable's coeeficient)
(provided entering variable's ce-efficient >0)
If all the Entering variable's coefficient is <=0, then the RATIO DOES NOT EXIST or it is
INFINITY. In this case what we infer is:

The zj-cj value of a Non-Basic variable being -ve for a MAX problem means by increasing the
value of that Non-Basic variable we can increase the value of teh Obj Fun. But the existenece
of teh ratios mean we may increase teh Non-Basic variable to ANY AMOUNT, INDEFINITELY
and No Danger to Non-Negativity. Thus we have in this case the inference being the LPP
being UNBOUNDED.
This is shown as an illustration

Basis
x3
x4
x5
x6
x8
x9

Cb

x1

x2

x7
-ve
0
0
-ve
0
-ve

xn

Soln

zj-cj

-ve

Entering variable: x7
Nothing stops us from increasing x7 forever to get better values of
objective function.

How to solve any LP even if we do not have an OBVIOUS INITIAL BASIC FEASIBLE SOLN.

So far we have seen the Simplex Alg as applied to the case of

All Constraints of the type "<= " and RHS => 0 ie In other words,
Origin is an OBVIOUS INITIAL BFS.
Now we shall see if the above structure does not exist in an LPP how would we go about
solving the problem.

Example: Consider the LPP

Minimize Z = 12x1+ 7x2
Subject to
2x1+5x2+5x3 => 20
4x1+3x2 +x3=>18
x1, x2 =>0
The above LP does not have the structure that helps us to identify an Obvious Initial BFS.
The standard form of the above LP is:
Minimize Z = 12x1 +7x2 +6x3
Subject to
Note: In this case, we need 2 Basic Variables.
2x1+5x2+5x3 -s1 = 20
If x1 & x2 are
4x1+3x2+
-s2 =18
x1, x2, s1 & s2 =>0

Example : Consider the LPP

Maximize Z = x1+2x2+4x3+3x4
Subject to
3x1+4x2+x3+2x4 = 120
x1+3x2+5x3+2x4 <= 150
x1, x2, x3 =>0
x4 unrestricted in sign
The above LP also does not have the structure that helps us to identify an Obvious Initial BFS.

this is violated)

es >=0, then we have

>= 0, we continue

This column titled as

Solution has the values
of the basic variables.

This cell has the value of

the Objective Function
corresponding the BFS
represented by the table.

n a Geometric Sense as illustrated below:

STEP 2: To find the OPTIMAL SOLUTION, (ie the point in the feasible region at which the
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION ATTAINS its MAXIMUM VALUE, we consider the
function 3x1+5x2.
An arbitrary constant is chosen for the Right Hand Side, say 15. Now we have
3x1+5x2 = 15 (represented by (Line 1). As we draw lines parallel to this on one side of , say
towards origin we woule be reducing the value of 3x1+5x2. To illustrate we have
3x1+5x2=7.5 As you move further towards origin and you draw a line parallel to to Line 1 or
Line 2 passing through origin, you would have Line 3: 3x1+5x2=0
It can be easily infered that as we move in the direction pointed out by the arrows (away
from the origin) we would be increasing the value of 3x1+5x2 and moving towards the
origin we would have reduced values of 3x1+5x2.
STEP 3: Keep drawing parallel lines to 3x1+5x2 = 15 ie. Line 1 and ultimately you would
have a line that passes through the Corner Point C. At D we have 3x1+5x2 assuming the
MAXIMUM value.

n-Basic Variables,

s nothing but the Obje Fun coeffient of each of the variables.

mn is the documentation for the list of Basic Variables. Since,
& s3 (the only 3 non-zero variables at the Corner Point O, these
ariables. The remaining are the coefficients from the
e last column is the RHS values of the constraints.
m cell gives the value of teh Objective Function for this particular

e last column is the RHS values of the constraints.

m cell gives the value of teh Objective Function for this particular

and hence 0.

olumn in the

LE WITH the

ectly from the

plicitly does

epresented by

oduct of the

les, Obj Fun

se x1 from the current level of 0 to 1,

To keep Eqn# 1 balanced, s1 would

se x1 from the current level of 0 to 1,

ED to keep Eqn #2 balanced.

e x1 from the current level of 0 to 1,

To keep Equation #3 balanced, s3

ET WORTH"

me value from cj row!)

eases to 6 from 0.

LEAVES THE

Provided this coefficient is >0.

We DO NOT FIND the RATIO if this
coefficient is 0 or -ve.

same as the value of the incoming

ons involved and what the minimum means).

ou should be able to do this.

ed are shown below:

is now a Basic
oefficient of x2 in

is now basic and its

w has to be 0.

tor product of Cb & Soln

0+6*5+6*0 =30

ctive coulmns - cj

1)*0 = -5/2

coefficient of the
er). This is as a result of the
c Variable would decrease and

s1 decreases by 1. Current s1

whatever is the increase given

coming , 0 and violating Non -

ve), we ignore the case

WE HAVE MOVED TO C
WHERE
x1=2 & x2 = 6.
Thus, we have illustrated once
again the movement to
ADJACENT Corner Point.

enotes "what we loose -

here is no point in

ans we can't gain any

ain for unit increase

uld be able to get the value of OBJ FUN

cj will enter.
Note There is

of MAXIMIZATION

e reversed the Test for Optimality.

j fun coefficients by -

hat is the the maximum increase

NEGATIVITY.

O DOES NOT EXIST or it is

roblem means by increasing the

f teh Obj Fun. But the existenece
o ANY AMOUNT, INDEFINITELY
the inference being the LPP

Ratio
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable

uld we go about

t in the feasible region at which the

we consider the Objective

, say 15. Now we have

ines parallel to this on one side of , say
5x2. To illustrate we have Line2:
ou draw a line parallel to to Line 1 or

tion pointed out by the arrows (away

f 3x1+5x2 and moving towards the

5 ie. Line 1 and ultimately you would

At D we have 3x1+5x2 assuming the