Talk:Ellipsoid method
Simplex is slower in the asymptotic worst case than Ellipsoid. Changing this unless I am missing something.Lonjers (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
untitled
Simplex is slower in the asymptotic worst case than Ellipsoid. Changing this unless I am missing something.Lonjers (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Interior point methods
Could somebody give a reference for the following statement: "Only in the 21st Century have interior-point algorithms with similar complexity properties appeared." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.16.10.151 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ellipsoid method/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Writing "However, the interior-point method and variants of the simplex algorithm are much faster than the ellipsoid method, in both theory and practice." is incorrect. There is no variant of the simplex method known to run in polynomial time; therefore, it cannot be faster in theory. |
Last edited at 21:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Bad performance of Ellipsoid method
The ellipsoid method is worse than the simplex method except for specifically crafted families according to sentence 2 here. Is someone aware of a source for a proof of this fact? Then it would be appropiate to add it to this article. Mathelerner (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.