MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The reason I am wondering this is that all of the reductions from 3-SAT => quadratic programming (or similar NP-hard reductions) involve encoding the underlying NP-hard problem into feasibility testing. If you take out that trick, can you still find another way to encode it?

EDIT: Killed the duality stuff, don't know what I was thinking.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

No; I think what you're observing is a side effect of reducing from deicision problems; if you tried to encode an NP optimization problem, you'd end up using more than just the feasibility machinery.

Take MAX-CUT, with variables $x_i\in\{-1,+1\}$ indicating taking a vertex or not, and $W\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ a matrix of edge weights. Since cut capacity can be written as $\frac 1 2\sum_{i<j} W_{ij}(1-x_ix_j)$, the optimization problem has form $$ \min\ x^TWx \quad\quad \textrm{subject to} \quad \forall i\centerdot x_i^2 = 1. $$ Even the real-valued relaxation $x_i\in [-1,+1]$ is problematic since $W$ is in general indefinite. Like I said above, since we're trying to solve an NP optimization problem, we are definitely relying on the optimization machinery.

As a final point, I'm not sure why you brought duality into the picture, since the usual guarantees of strong duality are murky once nonconvexity enters the picture ....

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.