Talk:Branch and cut

Untitled
Hi, I may be missing something, but it seems there is an inconsistency between the `Branch and Bound' article and this `Branch and Cut' article. The `Branch and Bound' article says in the first line of its general description that it assumes minimization. This `Branch and Cut' article never states such an assumption, and only from text such as `A node can be pruned if an upper bound is lower than an existing lower bound' can it be inferred that the algorithm description assumes maximization. Three suggestions: (1) Explicitly state whether the algorithm description assumes minimization or maximization. (2) Make it minimization so that this article is consistent with the `Branch and Bound' article. (3) The information I came here to remember was, during maximization, how the algorithm maintains a lower bound. All that is said here is `integral solutions serve as lower bounds.' Perhaps explain this a little better, for example that an incumbent or `best-so-far' integer solution can serve as a global lower bound, which unlike upper bounds is not node-specific. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.93.240 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a clear reference as to who first implemented branch and cut? It would be nice to see who had the first paper on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.106.46 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Branch and cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901073653/http://www.cs.sandia.gov:80/opt/survey/mip.html to http://www.cs.sandia.gov/opt/survey/mip.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)