Answer:
1 length ityoughkdds hshlkb
Answer:
a) Objective function (minimize cost):

Restrictions
Proteins per pound: 
Vitamins per pound: 
Non-negative values: 
b) Attached
c) The optimum solution (minimum cost) is 0 pounds of ingredient A and 0.75 pounds of ingredient B. The cost is $0.15 per ration.
d) The optimum solution changes. The cost is now 0 pounds of ingredient A and 0.625 pounds of ingredient B. The cost is $0.125 per ration.
Step-by-step explanation:
a) The LP formulation for this problem is:
Objective function (minimize cost):

Restrictions
Proteins per pound: 
Vitamins per pound: 
Non-negative values: 
b) The feasible region is attached.
c) We have 3 corner points. In one of them lies the optimal solution.
Corner A=0 B=0.75

Corner A=0.5 B=0.5

Corner A=0.75 B=0

The optimum solution (minimum cost) is 0 pounds of ingredient A and 0.75 pounds of ingredient B. The cost is $0.15 per ration.
d) If the company requires only 5 units of vitamins per pound rather than 6, one of the restrictions change.
The feasible region changes two of its three corners:
Corner A=0 B=0.625

Corner A=0.583 B=0.333

Corner A=0.75 B=0

The optimum solution changes. The cost is now 0 pounds of ingredient A and 0.625 pounds of ingredient B. The cost is $0.125 per ration.
No because the scale factor is inconsistent while it would be neccecary to be consistent if it was similar. 19.9/15.3=1.3 while 29/25=1.16 which proves that they have an inconsistent scale factor.
Answer:c
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
27 and 29
Step-by-step explanation:
let A and B the expected numbers
assuming B = A + 2, the problem can be written as follows
¼(A + A + 2) = 14
4*¼(A + A + 2) = 4*14
(A + A + 2) = 56
2A + 2 = 56
A + 1 = 28
A = 27
B = 27 + 2 = 29