Let and . For unrestricted , the system of linear inequalities has no feasible point if and only if there is a vector withThe entries are nonnegative Lagrange multipliers for the rows. Multiplying inequalities by them preserves their direction; the condition cancels every variable, leaving the contradictionThis is a Farkas' lemma alternative for non-strict inequalities; no strict-feasibility assumption is needed. See Boyd and Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (2004), §5.8.3, pp. 261–262.
Three individually possible requirements, jointly impossible. Suppose two unrestricted real coordinates , drawn as in the diagram, must satisfyWrite every row in the same direction:Then and . The nonnegative weighted sum, with Lagrange multipliers , is visiblyEach individual requirement defines a half-space in the plane. Even every pair has a feasible point: satisfies the first two, the first and third, and the second and third. Their common intersection is empty, because the first two force , while the third demands at most .
Why cancellation is necessary for unrestricted variables. A nonzero linear functional can be made arbitrarily positive or negative by varying unrestricted , so alone would not yield a contradiction. Equality is essential here. If is also imposed, the sufficient certificate becomes , , , because then . This is the sign convention used in robust infeasibility under uniform constraint relaxation. One can instead append the rows and use the equality certificate on the enlarged system. Reversing all constraints to reverses the scalar sign to , as in the normalized integer Farkas infeasibility gap.
Checking a solver's infeasibility claim. A returned Farkas certificate for linear inequalities gives a short verification procedure: compute and , and check the three displayed conditions against the original constraints. Any positive multiple is another certificate; division by normalizes to . With rational numbers as data and certificate, the tests can be exact. With floating-point arithmetic, a small residual is a diagnostic rather than an exact cancellation: unrestricted can amplify a nonzero residual without bound. A rigorous certificate therefore needs exact cancellation or justified error bounds and additional bounds on the variables. The strict negative scalar is the margin of contradiction.
The same weighted sums give dual bounds. For the linear program maximizing over unrestricted with , any satisfying givesfor every feasible point. Minimizing over these multipliers is the dual linear program; the bound itself is weak duality. For example, maximize subject to , , . The multipliers give the upper bound , attained at . The infeasibility example above uses the same row directions, but lower bounds of on both coordinates. Its multipliers cancel the objective function as well as the variables: with would bound zero by a negative number. Thus impossibility and linear programming optimality certificates use the same arithmetic. See Boyd and Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization slides, §§5.32–5.35 for infeasibility as a dual alternative.
Why every inconsistent system has such a certificate. Introduce a slack variable vector and write . Split the unrestricted vector as with . Applying Farkas' lemma to the column matrix gives , , and . The first two conditions together are exactly . This reduction explains both the equality and the nonnegative row multipliers.
Suppose have integer entries of absolute value at most , has columns, and is infeasible. A Farkas certificate for linear inequalities can be chosen with , , and the displayed lower bound. Normalize an infeasibility certificate to obtain the last equality, then maximize over the resulting compact linear polyhedron. A maximizing extreme point has at most positive entries: otherwise the augmented columns on its support would be dependent, allowing feasible perturbations in both directions. For its independent supported columns, select independent equations. Cramer's rule expresses the supported entries with a common nonzero integer determinant denominator. That determinant has absolute value at most . The positive value therefore has a positive integer numerator over a denominator of at most this size, proving the bound.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.
