search for: presolver

Dear all, I am trying to find the solution for the optimization problem focused on the finding minimum cost. I used the solution proposed by excel solver, but there is a restriction in the number of variables. My data consists of 300 rows represent cities and 6 columns represent the centres. It constitutes a cost matrix, where the cost are distances between each city and each of six centres. ..+

Hello all, I would like to use the lp function (lpSolve package) on a linux system. Using sample code from the lp function help, I can solve the linear program with no errors or problems. However, when I copy the exact same code to R in linux (after loading the lpSolve package), I get the following error: *** caught segfault *** address 0x3, cause 'memory not mapped' Traceback: 1:

Hi I have just dwonloaded QCA3 onto this machine (ubuntu, karmic, amd64) and a mac. The examples run fine on teh mac, but crashed R on ubuntu. Any help much apprecia\ted. Thanks Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Terminal log: > conditions <- >

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Steven Su <steven_known at yahoo.com.cn> wrote: > Hi, John > I am building a flow sensitive intra-procedural alias analysis(without interprocedural info). > So, the first thing I have to consider is where a parameter-pointer or a global-pointer might point to. > Then I defined several special Virtual Memory Locations:

Hi, Daniel, thank you for your advice. Yes, ALL_MEMORY points to ALL_MEMORY. We use MD(memory descriptor) to abstract a memory location.  MD contains 4 main fields: id, base, offset, size. For these special MD (ALL_MEMORY, GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY),  we give them id 1, 2, 3, 4, that means MD1 is ALL_MEMORY, MD2 is GLOBAL_MEMORY, the same goes for the rest.  Then we maintain a

Dear all, I am a beginner with lpSolve package (and not an expert in the others). I can not understand why I am doing wrong, and I would be very grateful if anyone could please help me on this. I am trying to optimize ("min") the sum of columns/variables, constrained to >=1. Each column/variables has its weight - given by values at f.obj. The matrix for numeric constraint

Hi, John I am building a flow sensitive intra-procedural alias analysis(without interprocedural info). So, the first thing I have to consider is where a parameter-pointer or a global-pointer might point to. Then I defined several special Virtual Memory Locations: ALL_MEMORY, GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY. ALL_MEMORY contains GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY. e.g1:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Steven Su <steven_known at yahoo.com.cn> wrote: > Hi, Daniel, thank you for your advice. > Yes, ALL_MEMORY points to ALL_MEMORY. > > We use MD(memory descriptor) to abstract a memory location. > MD contains 4 main fields: id, base, offset, size. > For these special MD (ALL_MEMORY, GLOBAL_MEMORY, STACK_MEMORY, HEAP_MEMORY), > we give them

...m to overdefined. IPCP also works much the same way by pre-solving arguments constants This is precisely because this stuff is non-trivial to reason about, and unclear to me that it's really worth it. If *it* is worth it, we can do better than we do now (and contain the mess *entirely* to the presolver), and if it's not, we shouldn't have complicated reasoning to try to make it work well. Right now we have the worst of all worlds. We have a mess in both places (the resolver and the solver both step on each other and differ in behavior), it's hard to reason about (though provably not...

Hi Daniel, On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> Right, but we are talking about "when, in the intermediate state, can i >> transform an undef to a different value". >> >> Remember you can only go down the lattice. So you can't make undef >> constant, and then discover it's wrong, and go back up :)

...lso works much the > same way by pre-solving arguments constants > > This is precisely because this stuff is non-trivial to reason about, and > unclear to me that it's really worth it. If *it* is worth it, we can do > better than we do now (and contain the mess *entirely* to the presolver), > and if it's not, we shouldn't have complicated reasoning to try to make it > work well. > > Right now we have the worst of all worlds. We have a mess in both places > (the resolver and the solver both step on each other and differ in > behavior), it's hard to reas...