todos
This commit is contained in:
parent
6f81cd0eca
commit
97b4f71241
7
main.tex
7
main.tex
@ -196,6 +196,11 @@ The number of breakpoints on $L(\lambda)$ is at most $n-1$.
|
||||
|
||||
(there is a $\pm1$ difference between principal partition and graph strength... but we dont care those $c\lambda$ terms since the difficult part is minimize $L(\lambda)$ for fixed $\lambda$)
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{principal sequence of partitions for cut interdiction}
|
||||
I don't expect similar results hold.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{integrality gap}
|
||||
I guess the 2 approximation cut enumeration algorithm implies a integrality gap of 2 for cut interdiction problem.
|
||||
|
||||
\section{Random Stuff}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -220,7 +225,7 @@ s.t.& & \sum_{e\in T} c(e)x_e&\geq k & &\forall T\\
|
||||
\end{aligned}
|
||||
\end{equation*}
|
||||
|
||||
These two LPs have the same optimum. One can see that any feasible solution to
|
||||
These two LPs have the same optimum. Any feasible solution to
|
||||
LP1 is feasible in LP2. Thus $\opt(LP1) \geq \opt(LP2)$. Next we show that any
|
||||
$x_e$ in the optimum solution to LP2 is always in $[0,c(e)]$.
|
||||
Let $x^*$ be the optimum and
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user