How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Phase I feasible-basis extraction and infeasibility certificate
Statement
For any exact system , , the Phase I procedure of Phase I revised simplex and rank reduction terminates. Its minimum artificial-variable sum is zero if and only if the original system is feasible. If the minimum is positive, its returned vector yields a Farkas infeasibility certificate, as defined in Revised simplex standard-form linear program, with and . If the minimum is zero, the extraction procedure returns an equivalent full-row-rank reduced system with a basic feasible solution using only original columns; zero-valued artificial basic variables are either pivoted out or their redundant equations are removed.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Finite exact matrices and vectors , with nonnegative original variables.
Phase I revised simplex and rank reduction: Phase I row-signs the equations, uses with initial , minimizes , and extracts zero artificial basics by pivots or zero-row deletion.
Bland-rule finite termination and optimal-basis existence: Under its exact-arithmetic, finite-standard-form, full-row-rank hypotheses, the primal run terminates at an optimal basis or returns a strictly negative-cost feasible ray.
Basis dictionaries and reduced costs for revised simplex: The basis multiplier is .
Revised simplex standard-form linear program: A vector satisfying and is called a Farkas infeasibility certificate for this sign convention.
Farkas alternative for a finite linear system: Exactly one of and existence of with holds for every finite real .
Proof
Let when and otherwise. Since is invertible and , is equivalent to , and . The augmented matrix has full row rank because it contains the identity columns; is feasible for the Phase I problem and has objective .
By [F2] the Phase I primal algorithm terminates at an optimum or an unbounded ray. Its objective is at every feasible point, so a negative-cost ray is impossible; it terminates at a minimum with nonnegative reduced costs.
Suppose the minimum . Any feasible original would give a Phase I feasible point of objective zero, contradicting minimality. Let be the terminal basis multiplier for the Phase I objective . Nonnegative reduced costs on the original columns, using [F3], give , and the basic-vector identity gives .
Suppose instead that . Since every artificial variable is nonnegative and their sum is zero, each artificial variable has value zero, and the original coordinates satisfy . If an artificial variable is basic at tableau row and some original nonbasic column has a nonzero coefficient in row of , pivot that column in. The pivot is nonzero, and the entering variable and leaving artificial variable both have value zero, so the represented feasible point is unchanged and one artificial basic variable is removed.
Set . Then and , so [F4] identifies it as a Farkas certificate. The finite-system alternative [F5] says exactly one of feasibility and such a certificate holds; because this satisfies the certificate branch, the original system is infeasible.
If no original nonbasic column has a nonzero coefficient in row , every original basic column has a unit column there at a different row, so the entire row of is zero. Every nonbasic artificial variable is zero, every other basic artificial column has zero in row , and the basic artificial value at row is zero; hence row of is also zero. The transformed equation is and may be deleted without changing the feasible set; deleting that row and its artificial basis column leaves an invertible identity submatrix for the remaining basis.
Each pivot or row deletion removes one artificial basic variable, so after at most such operations no artificial variable remains basic. The remaining basis consists of original columns and is invertible for the retained row-reduced system; its basic vector is feasible because the represented point never changed. The retained equations are equivalent to the original system by the invertible row operations and deletion only of rows. This proves the zero-optimum extraction claim, including redundant-row removal.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
12 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Dimitris Bertsimas and John N. Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Linear Optimization, §3.5 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Michel Goemans, MIT 18.310 Lecture Notes: Linear Programming, §2.5 (standard reference, not scraped)