You are really a great teacher....i understood each word of yours....and thank you so very much for using the same example for all...It helps to develop good understanding about logic and methods.
thank you so much for the great videos :) i have a question please how did you change the value of X2 from node(1) to node(2) it was 1.83 -> 2.08 (i added the 0.77 taken from X1 but its not like that i think)
+Decision Making 101 ooh i see ... so you add the new constraint every time and solve using the Simplex method now i get it, its much clear now thank you ;)
The videos are great!! They are of great help to me!! So heartfelt thanks! But I have a question - When you calculate optimality gap in node 1, shouldn't the denominator be 11.02 instead of 7?
nice catch, I'd have to agree with you, the optimality gap is more likely to be 36.5%. Maybe you can help clarify my own question above? I'm not sure if the presenter will still respond to comments here.
Can you explain why you chose to branch Node 2 first and not Node 3? You're reasoning is that Node 2 had a higher objective function value. How does that increase chances of solutions existing there?
Around 9:44, I'm not sure why you only change the upper bound for node 3 to 10.25, but keep 11.02 for node 2. Shouldn't the expected upper bound be the same for all nodes at one level? Amazingly clear video otherwise, thanks!
+Sagar Patel Node 5 is the original model plus two branching constraints x1=3. With those constraints, there are no feasible solutions, hence node 5 is infeasible. Solve graphically or using Excel if you are not convinced.
+Gustavo Dambros Arbitrary choice. I could have used it in every node, but then the example would solve very quickly. Note that B&B solver can choose to run heuristics in some nodes only.
You are really a great teacher....i understood each word of yours....and thank you so very much for using the same example for all...It helps to develop good understanding about logic and methods.
thanks a lot man, your explanations are precise and easily to get, I would be lost without tutorials like this in my studies of all in OR, keep it up!
this was so helpful for my finals. Thank you!
Thank you for uploading this kind of video. It really helps me a lot. :D
Best explanation ever!! thank you so much!!
Really great explanation, thank you so much!
i love your explanation. very precise and to the point. Thank you very much
Thanks a lot.You explained each step very efficiently.:)
awesome explanation..thumbs up :)
these videos are really great, very helpful. Please make videos for chapter 7 and 8 as well. Thank you so much
Nice and clear explanation, thanks!
Perhaps the first video on branch and bound LLP which is short as well as having a clear explanation, thanks!
Really helpful!
thank for the great explaination and what does not gomory cutting methode exist in this chapter
Thank you , it's very clear explanation
very strong from you sir, thanks xo
in node 3, how to get 1.25 because i calculated a value of 1.75
Vielen dank ;) Es mir viel geholfen
Bravo!
thank you
thank you so much for the great videos :)
i have a question please
how did you change the value of X2 from node(1) to node(2)
it was 1.83 -> 2.08
(i added the 0.77 taken from X1 but its not like that i think)
+soufiane sbaa In node 1, you solve the original problem. In node 2, you solve the original problem with an additional constraint x1
+Decision Making 101
ooh i see ... so you add the new constraint every time and solve using the Simplex method
now i get it, its much clear now
thank you ;)
The videos are great!! They are of great help to me!! So heartfelt thanks! But I have a question - When you calculate optimality gap in node 1, shouldn't the denominator be 11.02 instead of 7?
nice catch, I'd have to agree with you, the optimality gap is more likely to be 36.5%. Maybe you can help clarify my own question above? I'm not sure if the presenter will still respond to comments here.
Can you explain why you chose to branch Node 2 first and not Node 3? You're reasoning is that Node 2 had a higher objective function value. How does that increase chances of solutions existing there?
If you have z min what I do?
how did you get x2= 2.25?
how to get the values for node 2 and node 3, without simplex
BVS MURTHY You could use the Lagrangian
Can be done using the graphical method as the problem only involves two decision variables.
Around 9:44, I'm not sure why you only change the upper bound for node 3 to 10.25, but keep 11.02 for node 2. Shouldn't the expected upper bound be the same for all nodes at one level? Amazingly clear video otherwise, thanks!
same question here...
Did you figure out why he did this?
thanku for the video but i want to ask you how did you get 2.77 and 1.83?
+meri beqiri you can find it in his previous video.
tyyy
Great explanation but why is Node 5 infeasible?
+Sagar Patel Node 5 is the original model plus two branching constraints x1=3. With those constraints, there are no feasible solutions, hence node 5 is infeasible. Solve graphically or using Excel if you are not convinced.
Why did you only used the heuristic in the node 1 and not in the node 2 too?
+Gustavo Dambros Arbitrary choice. I could have used it in every node, but then the example would solve very quickly. Note that B&B solver can choose to run heuristics in some nodes only.
+Decision Making 101 ok, thank you very much :D
You have a polish accent, am i right?
+StarzzLAB CoRRect.
Od razu wyczułem! super film, przydał się dzisiaj na kolokwium.
are you serious?
bad accent.
IS That really important? lol