Codex @codex  0

Dynamic programming solves a mathematical optimization problem by choosing reusable subproblems, recording their value functions, and combining already solved cases through a recurrence relation. Its attraction is that many possible decision histories can share one continuation calculation. A dynamic programming state must retain everything needed to determine the allowed future choices and their rewards. The 0-1 knapsack problem, for example, needs both the available capacity and which items remain available; capacity alone would lose the restriction that each item can be used at most once.

Two ideas explain when this works. Optimal substructure makes an optimal continuation valid inside a larger optimal solution. When subproblems overlap, storing each answer avoids repeated work: memoization computes entries as needed, while a table fills them in dependency order. Start from known base cases. For a problem indexed by increasing size, compute smaller cases first; for a finite sequence of future decisions, work backwards from the terminal reward, as in the Bellman equation. See Bertsekas, MIT lecture 2: optimality and state augmentation.

Consider a 0-1 knapsack problem with item weights $(w_1,w_2,w_3)=(2,3,4)$, item values $(v_1,v_2,v_3)=(3,4,5)$, and capacity $5$. Define the value function $V_i(W)$ to be the largest total item value obtainable from the first $i$ items with total weight at most $W$. Here $i\in \{0,1,2,3\}$ and $W\in \{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$ specify the dynamic programming state. All weights and capacities are nonnegative integers. The empty selection supplies the base case $V_0(W)=0$. The recurrence relation isThe two candidates skip or take item $i$. Both use the previous row, so taking item $i$ cannot take that same item again. The condition $W\ge w_i$ prevents a negative remaining capacity; no entry with $W<0$ is needed. The optimal substructure is concrete: after taking item $i$, its companions must solve the smaller 0-1 knapsack problem on the first $i-1$ items with capacity $W-w_i$. Otherwise replacing them by a better feasible selection would improve the whole selection. Compare ^[ref]; those notes index the remaining items in the opposite direction.

The full computation is small enough to see at once:For example, $V_2(5)=\max \{3,4+3\}=7$ and $V_3(5)=\max \{7,5+0\}=7$. Choosing the feasible item with largest individual value takes weight $4$, earns $5$, and leaves capacity $1$, which cannot fit another item. This greedy algorithm misses the two-item selection of weights $2$ and $3$, whose value is $7$. This example tests the largest-individual-value rule; choosing by value divided by weight happens to find the optimum here.

The number $V_3(5)=7$ is the optimal value, while the choices attaining it form a control policy. To reconstruct one optimal selection, start at $(3,5)$. Equality with $V_2(5)$ allows skipping item $3$. At $(2,5)$, taking item $2$ gives $4+V_1(2)=7$, so continue to $(1,2)$. Take item $1$ and finish at $(0,0)$. In a tie, either maximizing choice suffices to recover one optimum. Recording choices during the calculation or comparing stored entries afterwards recovers the control policy; a final optimal value alone does not describe the selection.

For $n$ items and integer capacity $W\ge 1$, the table uses time complexity $O(nW)$ and space complexity $O(nW)$, counting arithmetic operations and stored numbers using Big O notation. This is pseudo-polynomial time: when weights and capacity use the binary numeral system, the capacity needs only $O(\log (W+1))$ digits. A capacity near $2^b$ creates about $2^b$ columns despite needing only about $b$ digits. Thus this algorithm is practical for moderate capacities but does not establish polynomial time in the encoded input length. See MIT 6.006 recitation 19: knapsack and input size. For the optimal value alone, one array reduces space complexity to $O(W)$: for each item, update capacities in descending order, from $W$ down to $w_i$. Ascending order would read entries already updated for that item and could reuse it. Reconstruction then requires extra information or recomputation.

The link between the knapsack problem and dynamic programming is already explicit in a 1957 paper by Richard Bellman at RAND: its abstract discusses an exact knapsack problem solution using functional equations and cites his 1957 book. See Bellman, Comment on Dantzig's Paper on Discrete Variable Extremum Problems (1957).

Use the usual finite binary encoding of integer or rational input data. NP consists of decision problems whose yes-instances have polynomial-length certificates in computational complexity verifiable in polynomial time. A decision problem is NP-hard if every problem in NP has a polynomial-time many-one reduction to it. It is NP-complete if it is both NP-hard and in NP. An optimization problem is NP-hard when computing its optimum would solve every NP decision problem through a polynomial-time reduction and an optimum-value query; membership in NP applies directly to decision problems, not to an unqualified optimization task.

Reduce subset sum to the 0-1 knapsack problem by setting $v_i=w_i=s_i$ and $B=t$. Every feasible value is at most $t$, and the optimum equals $t$ exactly when the subset sum answer is yes. The transformation and final comparison take polynomial time. Since subset sum is assumed NP-complete, exact knapsack optimization is NP-hard.

For the half-approximation algorithm for knapsack, use nonnegative weights and profits. Delete overweight items and nonpositive-profit items; take all positive-profit zero-weight items for free. On the remaining positive-weight items, sort decreasing $v_i/w_i$. Take the maximal initial prefix fitting the capacity, and stop at the first item that would overflow. Let $G$ be the prefix profit, and let $M$ be the largest profit of any individually feasible remaining item. Return the better of the prefix and that singleton, together with the free items. If every item fits, take them all.

The fractional knapsack problem fills exactly that prefix and a fraction $\alpha \in [0,1)$ of the first excluded item. Its optimum bounds the integer optimum, and without the free items its value is at most $G+\alpha v_{\mathrm{next}}\le G+M$. ThusWith total free profit $F$, the same inequality is $F+\max (G,M)\ge \frac{1}{2}(F+G+M)$. This gives an approximation ratio of $1/2$ in $O(n\log n)$ sorting time, with polynomial bit complexity for rational data. Nonnegative weights and capacity are the standard knapsack problem assumptions; unrestricted negative weights would not support this argument.

For the quadratic knapsack problem and its fractional row bound for quadratic knapsack, multiply the capacity inequality by the binary $x_i$ and use $x_i^2=x_i$:Remove items with $w_i>B$ first. If $x_i=1$, the remaining coordinates $x_j$ are feasible in the fractional problem defining $q_i$, so ${\sum }_{j\ne i}{p}_{ij}{x}_j\le q_i$. If $x_i=0$, that row's contribution is zero. Hence, with $c_i=v_i+q_i$,The double sum counts each symmetric interaction twice; there is no factor $1/2$ in this problem. Each $q_i$ is a fractional knapsack problem, computable by sorting positive $p_{ij}/w_j$ ratios, also handling zero weights separately. This takes polynomial time even when some interactions are negative, because an optional fractional item with negative profit is omitted.

The resulting 0-1 knapsack problem need not be solved exactly. Relax its capacity constraint with a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda \ge 0$. Its Lagrangian knapsack bound isFor feasible $x$, adding $\lambda (B-{\sum }_i{w}_i{x}_i)$ only increases its objective, and maximizing over independent binary choices produces the displayed expression. It is a convex piecewise-linear function with breakpoints at positive $c_i/w_i$. Evaluate those breakpoints and zero, or use the fractional knapsack problem ordering; the best bound is computable in polynomial time. Thus computing all $q_i$ and one additional Lagrangian relaxation gives the requested upper bound.

For the numerical example, the $q_1$ problem has capacity $3$ and item ratios $10/2=5$ and $12/3=4$. Select $y_2=1$ and $y_3=1/3$. This givesAn exchange argument justifies optimality: capacity used on the lower-ratio item can be transferred to the higher-ratio item until the latter is full. The stated $q_2=20$ and $q_3=15$ similarly follow from residual capacities $2$ and $1$. Therefore $c=(24,40,30)$, with ratios $24,20,10$. The fractional solution takes items $1,2$ and one-third of item $3$, yielding $74$. At $\lambda =10$ the Lagrangian knapsack bound gives the same value:The fractional solution attaining $74$ proves that this is the best bound from this auxiliary Lagrangian relaxation, though it need not be the exact quadratic optimum.

For branch and bound, branch on whether an unresolved $x_i$ is zero or one. If the selected set is $S$, subtract its weight from the residual capacity and retain its exact objective as a constant. For each remaining item replace $v_i$ by $v_i+2{\sum }_{j\in S}{p}_{ij}$, preserving the original interactions between remaining items. Recompute the fractional row bounds and the Lagrangian knapsack bound for that residual problem. Maintain an incumbent from genuine feasible binary solutions evaluated with the quadratic objective; prune infeasible nodes and nodes whose bound is no better than the incumbent. For example, selecting items $1,2$ gives the feasible value $50$. A finite binary branching tree eventually certifies the optimum, but worst-case running time is exponential, as expected for an NP-hard problem.