Diskussion:Nonlinear Opt.: Quadratic Problems 3

Hi You structured your wiki-entry well and it consists of all requirements by the OR-Chair. In the Introduction you mentioned the topic and its characteristics. But you could have emphasized more that you are considering no solution method, but just a method for proofing a necessary condition for solving nonlinear quadratic problems. But it is good that you mentioned three different solution methods with a direct-link to the Wolfe´s algorithm. The approach of the quadratic transformation is very theorectical formulated. It would have been better if this important element of this topic would be examined more detailed.

It is nice that you give two extensive examples, one for a maximization and one for a minimization problem. They are very detailed and well structured. Especially the third example is very close to reality.

In form and content you did a very good job. Just at the end you made the ">-sign" the wrong way. Last but not least very good job.

Group 4.

Hello Group 3!

We really like your article and would like to make some comments.

Out of a few careless mistakes the spelling of your text is very good and the structure is thoughtful. The Table of contents is comprehensive and gives a quick overview of your written text.

The introduction is understandable and to name the most common slution methods is a good idea to link the following topics.

In the section of the Quadratic Form you wrote ...the objective function hast to be....and the quadratic matrix matrix.

The procedure in the Example For Convex And Concave Functions was also verbally explained very understandable in addition to the mathematical.

Only at the and of the second example you could have emphasize that there is no minimum of the checked function.

You did a little spelling mistake in the word observance (observence) and the function F(x) is missing a parenthesis.

I realy like the short reference to monopolistic theory in microeconomics and your whole example at all.

I think you introduced the constraints best of all groups!

The concluding proof of concavity would have been very nice but not absolutely necessary.

All in all your entry is extremly useful and easy to understand.

You should surely earn the 10 points for this work.

Yours truly

Group 2