Abstract
This technical comment refers to the discussion of strong consistency of several bounding procedures in Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.1 of Ref. 1. A necessary clarification is given of the notion of convergence φq → φ in Lemma 2.1, and a derivation of Proposition 2.1 is presented that includes a new and simple consistency proof of the classical bounding by convex envelopes used in many branch-and-bound procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Horst, R.,Deterministic Global Optimization with Partition Sets Whose Feasibility is Not Known: Application to Concave Minimization, Reverse Convex Constraints, DC Programming, and Lipschitzian Optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 58, pp. 11–37, 1988.
Falk, J., andSoland, R. M.,An Algorithm for Separable Nonconvex Programming Problems, Management Science, Vol. 15, pp. 550–569, 1969.
Al-Khayyal, F. A., andFalk, J.,Jointly Constrained Biconvex Programming, Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 8, pp. 273–286, 1983.
Dieudonne, J.,Foundations of Modern Analysis, 7th Edition, Academic Press, New York, New York, 1968.
Kall, P.,Approximation to Optimization Problems: An Elementary Review, Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 11, pp. 8–17, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Communicated by G. Leitmann
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horst, R. On consistency of bounding operations in deterministic global optimization. J Optim Theory Appl 61, 143–146 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00940850
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00940850