Diskussion:Transportation problem: Construction of starting solution 2

North-West corner method
The North-West corner method is explained in a right way. The steps to solve the example are comprehensible and also right. You made only one mistake which is that the total amount of the costs is not 18750 but 19950 monetary units.

Simple row sequence or column sequence methods
This method is also explained correcctly and sufficiently as well as the example. I just have one aspect to criticize. In your table you set both supply and demand of the cities zero which does not make sense because in this case you do not have to allocate anything at all.

Row column succesion
Your solution tableau looks fine. The quantities are in the right place following the row column succession. You could have marked the order of your steps by arrows. Your
written explanation has a small mistake. After you have allocated 30 units to Cairo/Moscow you look at the remaining column and place the 20 units of Moscow to New York. So
then the next field is New York/ London. In your solution Cairo/Moscow is determined few steps later.

Matrix-minimum method
The method is explained correctly. You could have pointed out graphically the way of allocation, explained by the text, using arrows. Moreover you it isn't explained that the supply is covered in the second step (beside the restriction in the first sentence).

Cost difference metod
At first there is a small spelling mistake in the first sentence (methodEs). Anyway, beside that it looks all fine to me. I have nothing to comment! Good job.

Fequency method by Habr
You used the right mathematical formulation of the problem and your determation of kij seems to be right as well. The allocation by using the matrix minimum method leads to an
understandable solution.

Modified north west corner method
The general application of the method is correcct. There is just one mistake in the text when you compare the costs Santiago de Chile/Dubai to the reallocation via Santiago de Chile/London, Cairo/London and Cairo/London. There you write: "It could be cheaper to allocate these 40 to Cairo/London". But it has to be Cairo/Dubai. The calculation is nevertheless right and the rest is also correct.