Yep, that's what I got.

Results 1 to 11 of 11

- July 28th 2006, 01:01 AM #1

- Joined
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 165

- July 28th 2006, 04:13 AM #2

- July 28th 2006, 02:07 PM #3

- Joined
- May 2006
- From
- Lexington, MA (USA)
- Posts
- 12,013
- Thanks
- 827

- July 28th 2006, 03:01 PM #4

- July 28th 2006, 03:13 PM #5
Soroban, I just ran this through the Linear Programming solver in Maple and it gave me (0,0) as the minimum. I looked right past the origin.

Looks like the list of answers is omitting the correct minimum. That's why you're the man and I'm just a dogface .

Good 'ketch' .

- July 29th 2006, 01:20 AM #6

- Joined
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 165

- July 29th 2006, 05:18 PM #7

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- New York City
- Posts
- 10,616
- Thanks
- 10

- July 29th 2006, 05:36 PM #8

- July 29th 2006, 06:04 PM #9

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- New York City
- Posts
- 10,616
- Thanks
- 10

- July 29th 2006, 07:19 PM #10Originally Posted by
**kwtolley***minimum*value is 0, not on the list. So there is a typo. From this linear programming solver, which you can use to both solve the problem or check your work, the*maximum*value is 165, answer a.

If you have linear programming problems to solve in the future, you may want to bookmark that solver.

- July 30th 2006, 01:50 AM #11