2
$\begingroup$

Is there a version of Gordan's Theorem in which $Ax=0$ has been replaced by $Ax=b$? That is, I want a condition (possibly including conditions on $A$) for when $Ax=b$ has a solution $x \neq 0$, for $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ and $b \in \mathbb{R}_+^m \setminus \{0\}$

Gordan's Theorem says that for all $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ we have $ \text{either} \quad \exists x \in \mathbb{R}_+^m\setminus{0} \centerdot Ax = 0, \quad\text{or}\quad \exists y\in\mathbb{R}^n\centerdot A^\top y > 0, $$

In particular, I cannot apply Farkas' Lemma to my problem because I want a condition with non-zero solutions.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What is the role of $b$ in all this? Maybe there is a misprint? $\endgroup$ Commented May 20, 2011 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ I am conjecturing that he wants $Ax = b$ or $A^t y > b^t...$ $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Commented May 20, 2011 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ So $A$ is square and $m=n$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 20, 2011 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ I'm looking for a version on Gordan's Theorem (stated) in which $Ax=0$ is replaced by $Ax=b$. $\endgroup$
    – bandini
    Commented May 20, 2011 at 16:20

3 Answers 3

4
$\begingroup$

All these results follow from the duality theory of linear programming.

Let $e$ be the vector in $R^n$ with all entries 1.

$Ax = b$, $x \ge 0$, $x \ne 0$ is solvable iff the problem P:

maximize $e^T x$ subject to $Ax = b$, $x \ge 0$

is unbounded. This implies that the dual problem D:

minimize $b^T y$ subject to $A^T y \ge e$

is infeasible, which is equivalent to saying that $A^T y > 0$ is unsolvable. However, it is possible for both problems P and D to be infeasible, so you don't have "if and only if". What's special about $b=0$ is that in that case you know that the problem P is feasible, namely $x=0$ is a feasible solution.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

This certainly won't work when $A=0$ and $b\neq 0$. In that case, $Ax=b$ has no solution and $A^{T}y>0$ has no solution.

Another counterexample to consider is $A=[1\;\; -1; -1\;\; 1]$ and $b=[2; 1]$. In this case, $Ax=b$ has no solution and $A^{T}y>0$ has no solution.

There's a related theorem of the alternative that is easy to prove: Either $Ax=b$, $x \geq 0$ has a solution (which would be nonzero if $A$ and $b$ are nonzero), or $A^{T}y \geq 0$, $b^{T}y<0$ has a solution, but not both. It's easy to prove this using LP duality.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

What you want is Farkas' theorem, see http://eom.springer.de/m/m130240.htm

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Not quite: Farkas' theorem allows for x=0. Gordan's theorem is a variant of Farkas with the added constraint that x is non-zero (the exact statement can be obtained by replacing $b$ with $0$ in the statement above). My question is whether Gordan's theorem (or something similar) remains true when we replace $0$ with $b$. $\endgroup$
    – bandini
    Commented May 20, 2011 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ The link to eom.springer.de is broken, but the article can now be found at encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Motzkin_transposition_theorem. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2022 at 10:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .