Module 5

Topic 4:
Economic interpretation and applications of duality:
Picking up from where we left last, this lecture can be viewed with two fold aims. The first is
to provide a formal interpretation of the dual variables and second is to establish the celebrated
result called Farkas Lemma using the principle of duality.
Consider the following LPP
max z = cT x
subject to Ax = b
x 0.
Suppose B is an optimal basis and (xB , 0) is an optimal solution. Then xB = B 1 b, and
the optimal solution of the associated dual problem is wT = cTB B 1 (recall the strong duality
theorem).
Suppose the resource vector b is perturbed slightly to b + b such that this perturbation does
not alter the optimal basis. In other words it means that B remains optimal basis for the LPP.
max z = cT x
subject to Ax = b + b
x 0.
However, the optimal solution will definitely see a change. The new optimal solution of the
perturbed LPP is say (xB + xB , 0), where,
xB + xB = B 1 (b + b)
giving
xB = B 1 b.
Now we figure out the effect of this perturbation on the objective value, say the new value be
z + z. Then,
z = cTB (xB + xB ) cTB xB
= (cTB B 1 )b
= wT b.
This implies
z
= wi , i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
bi
The rate of change of optimal objective function value with respect to the ith resource availability
bi is the ith optimal dual variable wi . In general, the ith optimal dual variable wi is an answer
to the question, If the amount of the constraint bi on the right of the ith constraint
c
Copyright
Reserved IIT Delhi

2
changes, how does the value of objective function change? In this sense, the dual variables
are to be treated as prices. Economists call them as shadow prices or implicit prices. In a more
general context, they are refereed to as Lagrange multipliers. In nutshell, shadow price is the
maximum price that the management/person is willing to pay for an extra unit of a limited
resource.
To illustrates the above discussion, we present the following example.
Example:
(P ) min 3x1 + 2x2
subject to 7x1 + 2x2 30
5x1 + 4x2 20
2x1 + 8x2 16
x1 , x2 0.
Its dual problem is
(D) max 30w1 + 20w2 + 16w3
subject to 7w1 + 5w2 + 2w3 3
2w1 + 4w2 + 8w3 2
w1 , w2 , w3 0.
The optimal table of (D) is as follows

cB vB
30 w1
16 w3

cj
wB
5/13
2/13

30 20 16
0
0
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
1 8/13 0
2/13 1/26
0 9/26 1 1/26 7/52

zj cj

where y4 and y5 corresponds to the slack variables w4 and w5 in (D).

From the last row of zj cj , we can read the optimal solution of (P) corresponding to the
original identity columns (w4 , w5 ) of (D). The optimal solution of (P) is x1 = 4, x2 = 1, optimal
5
2
solution of (D) is w1 = 13
, w2 = 0, w3 = 13
with optimal values of both problems equal 14.

30
31
1

Now suppose we change the resource vector 20 to 20 , i.e, b = 0 .
16
16
0
We can verify (!) that the current optimal basis remains optimal even on change in b. (Do not
worry even if you are not able to verify it right now. We shall be elaborating on this aspect in
Module 6. For the time being you can take it on its face value). Observe that
z = wT b =

5
13

c
Copyright
Reserved IIT Delhi

3
5
and thus the optimal value gets change from 14 to 14 + 13
= 14.385. Thus, one unit re5

laxation in the resource b1 brings w1 = 13 change in the objective function value.

On the other hand if we constraint resource b2 from present 20 to 19, the optimal basis remains
same (!) and so is the optimal value as w2 = 0.
Note that if we relax b2 by one unit to 21, the optimal basis will not remain the same(!) and
needs updation. In this case we need to solve the problem again. Here w2 = 0 information
actually does not help.
So, the dual variable help us to study the changes in the optimal objective value viz a
viz
changes in the resources provided the optimal basis remains unaltered.

We next move towards our second aim. Herein we illustrate the application of duality principle
studied so far to the celebrated Farkas Lemma. This lemma was originally proved by Von Hern
Julius ( Gyula) Farkas in 1902 and falls to a broad class of theorems of alternatives. The latter
denotes the class of theorems which construct two systems of linear inequalities or equations in
which one or the other has a solution but not both.
Farkas lemma states that a vector is either in a given convex cone or there exists a hyperplane
seperating the vector from the cone but not the both. More precisely , let A be an m n matrix
and b be an m 1 vector. Then, exactly one of the following two statements is true.

1. x Rn such that Ax = b, x 0.
2. y Rm such that AT y 0, bT y < 0.

The Farkas lemma has witnessed several variants off late but we have restricted ourselves to the
statement made above. Proof of Farkas lemma can be found in almost any optimization text
book. Though early proofs of this lemma do not make it clear as to why this lemma works; the
recent proofs are much simple to work out. Before pondering on the detailed proof, we try to
see the insight of the lemma.

For convenience, let A be a 2 2 matrix and let a1 , a2 be its two rows (in order) and A1 , A2 be
its two columns (in order).

If we look at system 1, Ax = b, x 0, graphically, the left hand side Ax is a vector in the

convex cone generated by the rows of A, i.e, see figure 1 So, by system 1 having a solution, we
mean the vector b must lie in the shaded region ( denoted by yellow in figure).

c
Copyright
Reserved IIT Delhi

a2
Ax
a1

Next, if we consider systems 2, AT y 0, bT y < 0 it is equivalent to saying that the vector y

makes an acute angle with A1 and A2 and simultaneously makes strict obtuse angle with vector
b. This can be graphically represented as follows:

A2

A y>0

A1

For instance, suppose we take

"
A=

1 3
4 2

then we can easily see that x1 = 35 , x2 =

4
5

"
and b =

3
4

satisfy

Ax = b, x 0
i.e, the system 1 has a solution. In this case system 2 is
y1 + 4y2 0
3y1 + 2y2 0
3y1 + 4y2 < 0
which is inconsistent (left to see it graphically).
c
Copyright
Reserved IIT Delhi

5
"
While, if we take same A but take b =

3
4

#
then system 1 is inconsistent as there is no

x1 , x2 0 for which
x1 + 3x2 = 3
On the other hand system 2 translates to the following system of inequalities.
y1 + 4y2 0
3y1 + 2y2 0
3y1 + 4y2 < 0
which is consistent (for instance choose y1 = 2, y2 = 1).
Note: System 1 and system 2 can not hold simultaneously. Since if x Rn and y Rm
such that
Ax = b, x 0,
AT y 0, bT y < 0
then,
(AT y)T x 0
giving y T Ax 0 or y T b 0. But this is not true as bT y = y T b < 0.

Proof of Farkas Lemma:

We define the following pair of primal-dual linear programs
(P ) min bT y
subject to AT y 0
(D) max 0T x
subject to Ax = b
x 0.
Observe that (P) is always feasible for 0 vector is always in its feasible set and so its optimal
objective value is less than equal to zero.
Suppose system 1 has no solution.
Then (D) is infeasible, which implies, (P) is unbounded. Consequently we can always find
y Rm satisfying system 2.

Next suppose system 2 has no solution. Then whenever AT y 0 then bT y > 0.

Now, if (P) is bounded then by the strong duality theorem, (D) has an optimal solution and so
has a feasible solution. By weak duality then,
= 0T x bT y

c
Copyright
Reserved IIT Delhi

6
But the same is not true. Thus (P) has to be unbounded.
Consequently (D) is infeasible, thereby, system 1 fails to have a solution.

c
Copyright
Reserved IIT Delhi