Talk:Constrained optimization

Define: Functional constraints

A brief mention or discussion is needed to define "functional constraints" and "regional constraints" in the field of constrained optimization and mathematical programming.

Spelling: Constrained Optimization

This method is actually spelled Constrained Optimization. After all, it is not trying to optimize the constraints but it is optimizing within the constraints. Here's a reliable source. I would like to move the article. --EnOreg (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The literature seems to be ambivalent about the name. I agree to move the article name to Constrained Optimization, but also keep the name Constraint optimization in the leading paragraph.Diego (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move. At least as far as the article keeps its current content, the references use the term "constraint optimization", e.g. [1]. Tizio 11:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be two different but related fields. Constrained optimisation is optimisation of a single cost function under multiple constraints, whereas constraint optimisation has to do with associating cost functions to multiple constraints and constructing a compound cost function in order to solve a constraint satisfaction problem. Related, but not the same. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also - opportunity cost

Pichpich removed opportunity cost from the "See also" section with the following explanation "opportunity cost is one of a gazillion examples of things sort of related to constraint optimization. Makes no sense to include it in the see also section."

Hey Pichpich, go ahead and add the 10 most related concepts that will maximize the value of the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just 10?Just about any article whose title contains the word "optimization" will be more relevant than opportunity cost. That includes algorithms like Particle swarm optimization or Reactive search optimization, whole fields like Combinatorial optimization, Stochastic optimization and Convex optimization, etc. You could also add tons of other stuff such as specific optimization problems like the Travelling salesman problem. In any case, opportunity cost is not even related to constraint optimization which is a computational problem in which the term "cost" is an abstract mathematical quantity not necessarily related to actual dollars. Pichpich (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request wasn't for you to just tell me about the topics...it was for you to actually add 10 related topics. Clearly you disagree with my own attempts at optimizing the value of this "See also" section...so please proceed with your own optimization effort. --Xerographica (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone disagrees with your attempts at ~~pessimizing~~ ~~optimizing~~ adding inappropriate links to the "See also" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, I don't believe in building "see also" lists by finding 10 tangentially related subjects. These lists of links should be limited to the ones which are sufficiently relevant, not to the ten least irrelevant. Pichpich (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say is something like that; the "see also" section is optimized by adding links to the most relevant topics, rather than the least irrelevant topics, or topics only relevant through one of the other topics already listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artur, we agree. My comment above was a reply to Xerographica. Pichpich (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pichpich, given that you can't think of an additional link that should be added...and given that we're nowhere near the constraint on the quantity of "See also" links...clearly there is no opportunity cost to adding "opportunity cost" to the "See also" section. So, then, what is the cost of adding "opportunity cost" to the "See also" section? --Xerographica (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "cost" is that the relevance is marginal, and only through generic articles such as cost, and that only through optimization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]