5

How do I prove an optimal solution to dual is not unique if an optimal solution to the primal is degenerate and unique?


What I tried:

Let the primal be

$$\max z=cx$$

subject to

$$Ax \le b, x \ge 0$$

Let the dual be

$$\min z'=b^Ty$$

subject to

$$A^Ty \le c^T, y \ge 0$$

Let the (we assume there is only one) primal solution be

basic variables: $(x_{B_1}, x_{B_2}, ..., x_{B_i})$

non-basic variables: $(x_{NB_1}, x_{NB_2}, ..., x_{NB_i})$

Let a (there could be more than one) dual solution be

basic variables: $(y_{B'_1}, y_{B'_2}, ..., y_{B'_i})$

non-basic variables: $(y_{NB'_1}, y_{NB'_2}, ..., y_{NB'_i})$

By degeneracy of primal solution, one of the basic variables is zero:

$$x_{B_{i_0}} = 0$$

Zero or not, since it's a primal basic variable, we have:

$$z_{B_{i_0}} - c_{B_{i_0}} = 0 = y_{B_{i_0}}$$

Note that $y_{B_{i_0}}$ is not necessarily the same as $y_{B'_{i_0}}$

By uniqueness of primal solution, all of the non-basic variables of primal have positive reduced cost:

$$z_{NB_1} - c_{NB_1} > 0$$

$$\vdots$$

$$z_{NB_i} - c_{NB_i} > 0$$

To show that the dual has alternative solutions, we must show that one of these is true:

$$z_{NB'_1} - b_{NB'_1} = 0$$

$$\vdots$$

$$z_{NB'_i} - b_{NB'_i} = 0$$

I think I could prove this assuming

$$\text{non-basic = slack}$$

which is not necessarily true of course.

How then might I prove this?

BCLC
  • 14,197

1 Answers1

5

You can find a proof of the statement in the table that you quote in the book

Linear and Integer Programming: Theory and Practice, Second Edition
pages 141-145, proof of Theorem 4.5.

However the exact statement is that existance of a degenerate and (additionally) unique solution of the primal implies multiple solutions to the dual.


Using the notation of the the above cited book, the proof of this statement proceeds as follows:

Let $x^*$ be a primal optimal basic feasible solution with basis variables $x_B^*$ (from this and due to the duality theorems you already know that the dual has a finite optimal solution). Since it is degenerate then there exists $$x_{i_0}^*=0, \qquad \text{ with } i_0 \in B$$ But the variable $y_{j_0}^*$ (that corresponds to $x_{i_0}$) of the corresponding dual basic feasible solution $y^*$ is nonbasic and therefore $$y_{j_0}^*=0 \tag1$$ On the other the Strong Complementary Slackness Theorem

(Theorem 3.6 of the book) implies that (given that primal in standard form has an optimal solution) there exists a pair of primal and dual optimal solutions $x^*$ and $y^*$ such that for each pair of complementary dual variables $(x_i^*,y_j^*)$ it holds that either $x_i^*>0$ or $y_j^*>0$ (or both).

Thus, due to uniqueness of the primal optimal solution (so this assumption is necessary for this proof) there is a dual optimal solution (not necessarily basic feasible) for which $$y_{j_0}^*> 0 \tag{2}$$
Relations $(1)$ and $(2)$ together imply that there exist multiple optimal dual solutions.


Edit 1: According to this question and answer you can see that it is impossible that both the primal and the dual have simultaneously multiple solutions. Together with the above proof this answers your question.

Jimmy R.
  • 36,148
  • Holy crap seriously?! Thanks...maybe it wasn't in the book preview? I'll check it out... – BCLC Dec 07 '14 at 13:03
  • 3
    I wrote out the quoted proof in case that you cannot access the book online. I think the assumption of uniqueness is necessary, so you cannot drop it. – Jimmy R. Dec 07 '14 at 13:04
  • Right so Stef, this doesn't really answer the question...thanks though – BCLC Dec 07 '14 at 13:06
  • Stef does this one seem right? "Suppose the primal has a degenerate optimal basic solution. Then, an optimal tableau contains a row whose r.h.s. column entry is 0. We can proceed with the dual simplex method by choosing the basic variable in this row to leave the basis. If there is a negative entry in the row, we can pivot on that entry to obtain another dual optimal basis. Otherwise, we have an optimal ray for the dual problem, and so there are multiple dual solutions." Answer to #1 here http://www.ohio.edu/people/melkonia/math442/hw/hw4.pdf – BCLC Dec 07 '14 at 13:14
  • How about this one? https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080714162243AAoR3Sh – BCLC Dec 07 '14 at 13:14
  • 2
    The homework link that you posted also uses the fact of uniqueness, so it is correct. See my edit and the link I added. It is not possible that both the primal and the dual have simultaneously multiple solutions. – Jimmy R. Dec 07 '14 at 13:35
  • 1
    Stef I would like to add further that the 300 points I gave up for this bounty as well as all the question and answering I've done over the past 8 or so months that led me to accummulating such were all worth this comprehensive answer. Again, thanks. – BCLC Dec 07 '14 at 13:40
  • 2
    To be honest I feel a little ashamed and not worth the bounty because my answer did not add innovative knowledge. Contrary it was based on searching of the correct sources and quoting them here. If you need I can always assign a bounty to one of your already given answers and return the points to you. However, thanks for your generous gesture and your kind words! – Jimmy R. Dec 07 '14 at 13:46
  • Oh sure. Hahaha. Thanks. How do I do that? – BCLC Dec 07 '14 at 13:47
  • 2
  • Jimmy R., how do you know $y_{j_0}^{}$ is non-basic? It seems to me that the reduced cost of $x_{i_0}$ is zero and hence $y_{j_0}^{} = 0$. I don't think it follows that $y_{j_0}^{*}$ is non-basic...? – BCLC May 07 '16 at 12:55
  • Jimmy R., did the book do some kind of proof by contradiction? Like assume dual solution is unique then we have $y_{j_0}^{}$ such that $y_{j_0}^{} > 0$ and $y_{j_0}^{*} = 0$ ? – BCLC May 07 '16 at 13:16
  • 1
    @BCLC Here is the proof https://books.google.gr/books?id=Sd3MBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR2&lpg=PR2&dq=gerard+sierksma+books+pdf+linear+and+integer+programming&source=bl&ots=G2a8L5nEvg&sig=jrE3SMwfwZwCCdSXl8T_gar70AU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM9vrG0szMAhXLEiwKHU9TBDoQ6AEILTAE#v=onepage&q=gerard%20sierksma%20books%20pdf%20linear%20and%20integer%20programming&f=false. Page 145 d). – Jimmy R. May 09 '16 at 09:14
  • Jimmy R., right thanks. I have questions about the proof :)) Like why is the corresponding $y$, to the basic $x=0$, non-basic? – BCLC May 09 '16 at 10:01
  • Oh, I'll try out the examples shown after. Thanks Jimmy R. But why is it non-basic...? – BCLC May 09 '16 at 10:04
  • @BCLC Ok, you mean it could be basic but still equal to zero. That is your question? – Jimmy R. May 09 '16 at 10:47