Connection/Consistency Between Different Definitions of Polyhedron? And How Does This Proof Apply to This...












3














My textbook gives the following definition of a polyhedron:




A polyhedron is defined as the solution set of a finite number of linear equalities and inequalities:



$$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



A polyhedron is thus the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces and hyperplanes. Affine set (e.g., subspaces, hyperplanes, lines), rays, line segments, and halfspaces are all polyhedra. It is easily shown that polyhedra are convex set.




I was trying to find a proof of the fact that polyhedra are convex sets, and so I came across this:




Let $mathrm{mathbf{a}}$ be a vector and let $b$ a scalar. Suppose that $mathrm{mathbf{x}}$ and $mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ satisfy $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$, respectively, and therefore belong to the same halfspace. Let $lambda in [0, 1]$. Then, $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$, which proves that $lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} +(1 - lambda) mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ also belongs to the same halfspace. Therefore a halfspace is convex. Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, the result follows from part (a).




The author provides a proof of this fact in his own question. However, after trying to understand this proof, a number of questions arose:




  1. The proof starts by supposing that $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$. But, in the above definition of a polyhedron, it is said that $mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$; in other words, we have that $a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m$, instead of $a^T_j x ge b_j$, which it seems is what the proof has?


  2. The above definition also has the set condition $c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p$. Is this equivalent to $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$ in the proof?


  3. The proof says that "Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, ...". What about the hyperplanes? I see no mention of them in the proof.



I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to clarify these.










share|cite|improve this question





























    3














    My textbook gives the following definition of a polyhedron:




    A polyhedron is defined as the solution set of a finite number of linear equalities and inequalities:



    $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



    A polyhedron is thus the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces and hyperplanes. Affine set (e.g., subspaces, hyperplanes, lines), rays, line segments, and halfspaces are all polyhedra. It is easily shown that polyhedra are convex set.




    I was trying to find a proof of the fact that polyhedra are convex sets, and so I came across this:




    Let $mathrm{mathbf{a}}$ be a vector and let $b$ a scalar. Suppose that $mathrm{mathbf{x}}$ and $mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ satisfy $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$, respectively, and therefore belong to the same halfspace. Let $lambda in [0, 1]$. Then, $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$, which proves that $lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} +(1 - lambda) mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ also belongs to the same halfspace. Therefore a halfspace is convex. Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, the result follows from part (a).




    The author provides a proof of this fact in his own question. However, after trying to understand this proof, a number of questions arose:




    1. The proof starts by supposing that $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$. But, in the above definition of a polyhedron, it is said that $mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$; in other words, we have that $a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m$, instead of $a^T_j x ge b_j$, which it seems is what the proof has?


    2. The above definition also has the set condition $c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p$. Is this equivalent to $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$ in the proof?


    3. The proof says that "Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, ...". What about the hyperplanes? I see no mention of them in the proof.



    I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to clarify these.










    share|cite|improve this question



























      3












      3








      3







      My textbook gives the following definition of a polyhedron:




      A polyhedron is defined as the solution set of a finite number of linear equalities and inequalities:



      $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



      A polyhedron is thus the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces and hyperplanes. Affine set (e.g., subspaces, hyperplanes, lines), rays, line segments, and halfspaces are all polyhedra. It is easily shown that polyhedra are convex set.




      I was trying to find a proof of the fact that polyhedra are convex sets, and so I came across this:




      Let $mathrm{mathbf{a}}$ be a vector and let $b$ a scalar. Suppose that $mathrm{mathbf{x}}$ and $mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ satisfy $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$, respectively, and therefore belong to the same halfspace. Let $lambda in [0, 1]$. Then, $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$, which proves that $lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} +(1 - lambda) mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ also belongs to the same halfspace. Therefore a halfspace is convex. Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, the result follows from part (a).




      The author provides a proof of this fact in his own question. However, after trying to understand this proof, a number of questions arose:




      1. The proof starts by supposing that $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$. But, in the above definition of a polyhedron, it is said that $mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$; in other words, we have that $a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m$, instead of $a^T_j x ge b_j$, which it seems is what the proof has?


      2. The above definition also has the set condition $c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p$. Is this equivalent to $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$ in the proof?


      3. The proof says that "Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, ...". What about the hyperplanes? I see no mention of them in the proof.



      I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to clarify these.










      share|cite|improve this question















      My textbook gives the following definition of a polyhedron:




      A polyhedron is defined as the solution set of a finite number of linear equalities and inequalities:



      $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



      A polyhedron is thus the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces and hyperplanes. Affine set (e.g., subspaces, hyperplanes, lines), rays, line segments, and halfspaces are all polyhedra. It is easily shown that polyhedra are convex set.




      I was trying to find a proof of the fact that polyhedra are convex sets, and so I came across this:




      Let $mathrm{mathbf{a}}$ be a vector and let $b$ a scalar. Suppose that $mathrm{mathbf{x}}$ and $mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ satisfy $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$, respectively, and therefore belong to the same halfspace. Let $lambda in [0, 1]$. Then, $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$, which proves that $lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} +(1 - lambda) mathrm{mathbf{y}}$ also belongs to the same halfspace. Therefore a halfspace is convex. Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, the result follows from part (a).




      The author provides a proof of this fact in his own question. However, after trying to understand this proof, a number of questions arose:




      1. The proof starts by supposing that $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{x}} ge b$ and $mathrm{mathbf{a}}' mathrm{mathbf{y}} ge b$. But, in the above definition of a polyhedron, it is said that $mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$; in other words, we have that $a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m$, instead of $a^T_j x ge b_j$, which it seems is what the proof has?


      2. The above definition also has the set condition $c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p$. Is this equivalent to $mathrm{mathbf{a}}'(lambda mathrm{mathbf{x}} + (1 - lambda)mathrm{mathbf{y}}) ge lambda b+ (1 - lambda)b = b$ in the proof?


      3. The proof says that "Since a polyhedron is the intersection of a finite number of halfspaces, ...". What about the hyperplanes? I see no mention of them in the proof.



      I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to clarify these.







      geometry convex-analysis proof-explanation affine-geometry polyhedra






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 3 at 20:36

























      asked Dec 2 at 0:05









      The Pointer

      2,61721334




      2,61721334






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2





          +50









          On question 1: It is frequently the case that the same definition can be expressed in multiple ways. In this case, you can define a polyhedron as



          $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



          Or you can define it as



          $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x ge b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



          Notice that , if you plug the same $a$ and $b$ in these two definitions, you will get different polyhedra. But that is because $a$ and $b$ themselves mean slightly different things in both definitions. In particular, whenever the author of the first definition would use $a$, the author of the second would use $-a$.



          For example, consider a 2D space, $mathbb{R}^2$, and let's focus on the polyhedron that is to the right on the line $x=1$.



          One author can denote this polyhedron as ${(x, y)|xge 1}$. Another author may write ${(x, y)|-xle -1}$. Regardless of which notation you choose, you're denoting the same polyhedron.



          On questions 2 and 3: Hyperplanes make things easier sometimes, but you can define a polyhedron simply as the intersection of half-spaces. You can simply replace each hyperplane of the kind $cx=d$ with two half-spaces, $cx geq d$ and $cx leq d$. Therefore, anything that works for intersection of half-spaces also works for intersection of half-spaces and hyperplanes.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            1














            In answer to question 1, if you negate $a$ and $b$, you obtain $-a^Txle -b$.



            For questions 2 and 3, a hyperplane is the intersection of the closed halfspaces it bounds.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
              – The Pointer
              Dec 2 at 19:44










            • Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
              – NoLongerBreathedIn
              Dec 3 at 20:34












            • Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
              – The Pointer
              Dec 3 at 20:40










            • Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
              – NoLongerBreathedIn
              Dec 4 at 21:10



















            1














            (1) you do not need to be worry about that. Since both $a_i$ and $b_i$ are arbitrary, then you can define the equivalent form $-a^T_jxge -b_j$ to the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$ and define some $a'$ and $b'$ for which $a'_j=-a_j$ and $b'_j=-b_j$ such that$$a'^T_jxge b'_j$$ (2) as any equality $p=q$ can be expressed by two simultaneous inequalities $ple q$ and $pge q$ or $ple q $ and $-ple -q$ therefore any $c^T_jx=d_j$ can be expressed similarly with $-c^T_jxle -d_j$ and $c^T_jxle d_j$ and treated to just like the other inequalities of the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$. More generally, you can define a polyhedron as follows:$$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m}$$because a set of inequalities is a generalized form of set of equalities as shown just before.



            (3) we have already answered this part in (2), but we mention it once more here for sake of completeness. Any equation of the form $$c^Tx=d$$ (which is also referred to as hyper-plane) is equivalent to two half-spaces as follows $$c^Txle d\-c^Txle -d$$which yields to an important result: any hyper-plane is equivalent to exactly two half-spaces



            P.S. it is highly recommended to check out the below resource on convex sets



            http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/



            which contains definitions and very nice approaches to convex sets and I think they meet your needs.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              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',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              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%2f3022036%2fconnection-consistency-between-different-definitions-of-polyhedron-and-how-does%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2





              +50









              On question 1: It is frequently the case that the same definition can be expressed in multiple ways. In this case, you can define a polyhedron as



              $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



              Or you can define it as



              $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x ge b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



              Notice that , if you plug the same $a$ and $b$ in these two definitions, you will get different polyhedra. But that is because $a$ and $b$ themselves mean slightly different things in both definitions. In particular, whenever the author of the first definition would use $a$, the author of the second would use $-a$.



              For example, consider a 2D space, $mathbb{R}^2$, and let's focus on the polyhedron that is to the right on the line $x=1$.



              One author can denote this polyhedron as ${(x, y)|xge 1}$. Another author may write ${(x, y)|-xle -1}$. Regardless of which notation you choose, you're denoting the same polyhedron.



              On questions 2 and 3: Hyperplanes make things easier sometimes, but you can define a polyhedron simply as the intersection of half-spaces. You can simply replace each hyperplane of the kind $cx=d$ with two half-spaces, $cx geq d$ and $cx leq d$. Therefore, anything that works for intersection of half-spaces also works for intersection of half-spaces and hyperplanes.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                2





                +50









                On question 1: It is frequently the case that the same definition can be expressed in multiple ways. In this case, you can define a polyhedron as



                $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



                Or you can define it as



                $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x ge b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



                Notice that , if you plug the same $a$ and $b$ in these two definitions, you will get different polyhedra. But that is because $a$ and $b$ themselves mean slightly different things in both definitions. In particular, whenever the author of the first definition would use $a$, the author of the second would use $-a$.



                For example, consider a 2D space, $mathbb{R}^2$, and let's focus on the polyhedron that is to the right on the line $x=1$.



                One author can denote this polyhedron as ${(x, y)|xge 1}$. Another author may write ${(x, y)|-xle -1}$. Regardless of which notation you choose, you're denoting the same polyhedron.



                On questions 2 and 3: Hyperplanes make things easier sometimes, but you can define a polyhedron simply as the intersection of half-spaces. You can simply replace each hyperplane of the kind $cx=d$ with two half-spaces, $cx geq d$ and $cx leq d$. Therefore, anything that works for intersection of half-spaces also works for intersection of half-spaces and hyperplanes.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  2





                  +50







                  2





                  +50



                  2




                  +50




                  On question 1: It is frequently the case that the same definition can be expressed in multiple ways. In this case, you can define a polyhedron as



                  $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



                  Or you can define it as



                  $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x ge b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



                  Notice that , if you plug the same $a$ and $b$ in these two definitions, you will get different polyhedra. But that is because $a$ and $b$ themselves mean slightly different things in both definitions. In particular, whenever the author of the first definition would use $a$, the author of the second would use $-a$.



                  For example, consider a 2D space, $mathbb{R}^2$, and let's focus on the polyhedron that is to the right on the line $x=1$.



                  One author can denote this polyhedron as ${(x, y)|xge 1}$. Another author may write ${(x, y)|-xle -1}$. Regardless of which notation you choose, you're denoting the same polyhedron.



                  On questions 2 and 3: Hyperplanes make things easier sometimes, but you can define a polyhedron simply as the intersection of half-spaces. You can simply replace each hyperplane of the kind $cx=d$ with two half-spaces, $cx geq d$ and $cx leq d$. Therefore, anything that works for intersection of half-spaces also works for intersection of half-spaces and hyperplanes.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  On question 1: It is frequently the case that the same definition can be expressed in multiple ways. In this case, you can define a polyhedron as



                  $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



                  Or you can define it as



                  $$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x ge b_j, j = 1, dots , m, c_j^T x = d_j, j = 1, dots , p }$$



                  Notice that , if you plug the same $a$ and $b$ in these two definitions, you will get different polyhedra. But that is because $a$ and $b$ themselves mean slightly different things in both definitions. In particular, whenever the author of the first definition would use $a$, the author of the second would use $-a$.



                  For example, consider a 2D space, $mathbb{R}^2$, and let's focus on the polyhedron that is to the right on the line $x=1$.



                  One author can denote this polyhedron as ${(x, y)|xge 1}$. Another author may write ${(x, y)|-xle -1}$. Regardless of which notation you choose, you're denoting the same polyhedron.



                  On questions 2 and 3: Hyperplanes make things easier sometimes, but you can define a polyhedron simply as the intersection of half-spaces. You can simply replace each hyperplane of the kind $cx=d$ with two half-spaces, $cx geq d$ and $cx leq d$. Therefore, anything that works for intersection of half-spaces also works for intersection of half-spaces and hyperplanes.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 4 at 14:23









                  Todor Markov

                  1,11317




                  1,11317























                      1














                      In answer to question 1, if you negate $a$ and $b$, you obtain $-a^Txle -b$.



                      For questions 2 and 3, a hyperplane is the intersection of the closed halfspaces it bounds.






                      share|cite|improve this answer





















                      • Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 2 at 19:44










                      • Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 3 at 20:34












                      • Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 3 at 20:40










                      • Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 4 at 21:10
















                      1














                      In answer to question 1, if you negate $a$ and $b$, you obtain $-a^Txle -b$.



                      For questions 2 and 3, a hyperplane is the intersection of the closed halfspaces it bounds.






                      share|cite|improve this answer





















                      • Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 2 at 19:44










                      • Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 3 at 20:34












                      • Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 3 at 20:40










                      • Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 4 at 21:10














                      1












                      1








                      1






                      In answer to question 1, if you negate $a$ and $b$, you obtain $-a^Txle -b$.



                      For questions 2 and 3, a hyperplane is the intersection of the closed halfspaces it bounds.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      In answer to question 1, if you negate $a$ and $b$, you obtain $-a^Txle -b$.



                      For questions 2 and 3, a hyperplane is the intersection of the closed halfspaces it bounds.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Dec 2 at 0:38









                      NoLongerBreathedIn

                      972




                      972












                      • Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 2 at 19:44










                      • Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 3 at 20:34












                      • Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 3 at 20:40










                      • Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 4 at 21:10


















                      • Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 2 at 19:44










                      • Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 3 at 20:34












                      • Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
                        – The Pointer
                        Dec 3 at 20:40










                      • Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
                        – NoLongerBreathedIn
                        Dec 4 at 21:10
















                      Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
                      – The Pointer
                      Dec 2 at 19:44




                      Thanks for the answer. With regards to question 1, isn't $-a^Txle -b$ different from $a^Txle b$?
                      – The Pointer
                      Dec 2 at 19:44












                      Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
                      – NoLongerBreathedIn
                      Dec 3 at 20:34






                      Um, sorry. It's of the proper form. It doesn't mean the same thing, but the set of possible constraints is the exact same.
                      – NoLongerBreathedIn
                      Dec 3 at 20:34














                      Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
                      – The Pointer
                      Dec 3 at 20:40




                      Hmm, what does it mean to say that "the set of possible constraints is the same"? How is it relevant in this context?
                      – The Pointer
                      Dec 3 at 20:40












                      Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
                      – NoLongerBreathedIn
                      Dec 4 at 21:10




                      Every constraint of the form $axle b$ is equivalent to a constraint of the form $axge b$, and vice versa.
                      – NoLongerBreathedIn
                      Dec 4 at 21:10











                      1














                      (1) you do not need to be worry about that. Since both $a_i$ and $b_i$ are arbitrary, then you can define the equivalent form $-a^T_jxge -b_j$ to the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$ and define some $a'$ and $b'$ for which $a'_j=-a_j$ and $b'_j=-b_j$ such that$$a'^T_jxge b'_j$$ (2) as any equality $p=q$ can be expressed by two simultaneous inequalities $ple q$ and $pge q$ or $ple q $ and $-ple -q$ therefore any $c^T_jx=d_j$ can be expressed similarly with $-c^T_jxle -d_j$ and $c^T_jxle d_j$ and treated to just like the other inequalities of the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$. More generally, you can define a polyhedron as follows:$$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m}$$because a set of inequalities is a generalized form of set of equalities as shown just before.



                      (3) we have already answered this part in (2), but we mention it once more here for sake of completeness. Any equation of the form $$c^Tx=d$$ (which is also referred to as hyper-plane) is equivalent to two half-spaces as follows $$c^Txle d\-c^Txle -d$$which yields to an important result: any hyper-plane is equivalent to exactly two half-spaces



                      P.S. it is highly recommended to check out the below resource on convex sets



                      http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/



                      which contains definitions and very nice approaches to convex sets and I think they meet your needs.






                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                        1














                        (1) you do not need to be worry about that. Since both $a_i$ and $b_i$ are arbitrary, then you can define the equivalent form $-a^T_jxge -b_j$ to the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$ and define some $a'$ and $b'$ for which $a'_j=-a_j$ and $b'_j=-b_j$ such that$$a'^T_jxge b'_j$$ (2) as any equality $p=q$ can be expressed by two simultaneous inequalities $ple q$ and $pge q$ or $ple q $ and $-ple -q$ therefore any $c^T_jx=d_j$ can be expressed similarly with $-c^T_jxle -d_j$ and $c^T_jxle d_j$ and treated to just like the other inequalities of the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$. More generally, you can define a polyhedron as follows:$$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m}$$because a set of inequalities is a generalized form of set of equalities as shown just before.



                        (3) we have already answered this part in (2), but we mention it once more here for sake of completeness. Any equation of the form $$c^Tx=d$$ (which is also referred to as hyper-plane) is equivalent to two half-spaces as follows $$c^Txle d\-c^Txle -d$$which yields to an important result: any hyper-plane is equivalent to exactly two half-spaces



                        P.S. it is highly recommended to check out the below resource on convex sets



                        http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/



                        which contains definitions and very nice approaches to convex sets and I think they meet your needs.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          1












                          1








                          1






                          (1) you do not need to be worry about that. Since both $a_i$ and $b_i$ are arbitrary, then you can define the equivalent form $-a^T_jxge -b_j$ to the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$ and define some $a'$ and $b'$ for which $a'_j=-a_j$ and $b'_j=-b_j$ such that$$a'^T_jxge b'_j$$ (2) as any equality $p=q$ can be expressed by two simultaneous inequalities $ple q$ and $pge q$ or $ple q $ and $-ple -q$ therefore any $c^T_jx=d_j$ can be expressed similarly with $-c^T_jxle -d_j$ and $c^T_jxle d_j$ and treated to just like the other inequalities of the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$. More generally, you can define a polyhedron as follows:$$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m}$$because a set of inequalities is a generalized form of set of equalities as shown just before.



                          (3) we have already answered this part in (2), but we mention it once more here for sake of completeness. Any equation of the form $$c^Tx=d$$ (which is also referred to as hyper-plane) is equivalent to two half-spaces as follows $$c^Txle d\-c^Txle -d$$which yields to an important result: any hyper-plane is equivalent to exactly two half-spaces



                          P.S. it is highly recommended to check out the below resource on convex sets



                          http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/



                          which contains definitions and very nice approaches to convex sets and I think they meet your needs.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          (1) you do not need to be worry about that. Since both $a_i$ and $b_i$ are arbitrary, then you can define the equivalent form $-a^T_jxge -b_j$ to the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$ and define some $a'$ and $b'$ for which $a'_j=-a_j$ and $b'_j=-b_j$ such that$$a'^T_jxge b'_j$$ (2) as any equality $p=q$ can be expressed by two simultaneous inequalities $ple q$ and $pge q$ or $ple q $ and $-ple -q$ therefore any $c^T_jx=d_j$ can be expressed similarly with $-c^T_jxle -d_j$ and $c^T_jxle d_j$ and treated to just like the other inequalities of the standard form $a_j^Txle b_j$. More generally, you can define a polyhedron as follows:$$mathcal{P} = { x mid a^T_j x le b_j, j = 1, dots , m}$$because a set of inequalities is a generalized form of set of equalities as shown just before.



                          (3) we have already answered this part in (2), but we mention it once more here for sake of completeness. Any equation of the form $$c^Tx=d$$ (which is also referred to as hyper-plane) is equivalent to two half-spaces as follows $$c^Txle d\-c^Txle -d$$which yields to an important result: any hyper-plane is equivalent to exactly two half-spaces



                          P.S. it is highly recommended to check out the below resource on convex sets



                          http://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/



                          which contains definitions and very nice approaches to convex sets and I think they meet your needs.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 4 at 21:05









                          Mostafa Ayaz

                          13.7k3836




                          13.7k3836






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022036%2fconnection-consistency-between-different-definitions-of-polyhedron-and-how-does%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Sphinx de Gizeh

                              Dijon

                              Équipe cycliste