Error in a formula, and a few typos

[m-bouville]

In the formula (which I cannot copy and paste) following "Let us look on an overly simplified example: Consider the formula [...]": setting x_0 to 0 constrains both x_1 and x_2 to 1. You mention just x_1 and then go on to set x_2 to 0.

Miscellaneous typos:

• "Math Programming Modelling Bascis" -> "Math Programming Modelling Basics". (Splitting hair: the spelling is inconsistent, "math" is American whereas "modelling" is British.)
• "It does not relay on the linear relaxation as much as MIP-solvers do." -> "It does not rely on the linear relaxation as much as MIP-solvers do."
• "CP-SAT can work much more efficient" -> "CP-SAT can work much more efficiently"
• "You can use this constraint very flexible for many tour problems." -> "You can use this constraint very flexibly for many tour problems."
• "AddCircuit can solve the eculidean TSP" -> "AddCircuit can solve the Euclidean TSP"
• "You need them to insert them into the no-overlap constraint." -> "You need to insert them into the no-overlap constraint." ?
• "More specific, CP-SAT will stop as soon as the objective value" -> "More specifically, CP-SAT will stop as soon as the objective value"
• "feeding information of previous itertions into the model." -> "feeding information of previous iterations into the model."
• "luckily there is literatur for you" -> "luckily there is literature for you"
• "We are not learning anything that is not available in the original formular" -> "We are not learning anything that is not available in the original formulas"
• "Branching can be interpreted fixing a variable" -> "Branching can be interpreted as fixing a variable"
• "I don't think very high of most meta-heuristics" -> "I don't think very highly of most meta-heuristics"

[d-krupke]

Thanks for the list and the suggestions to fix the errors. This helps a lot! I will update the primer accordingly when I am back in office next week.

Best,
Dominik

[d-krupke]

I fixed the spelling and grammar errors. However, I don't see the problem with the formula right now: Setting x_0=0 triggers x_1=1 due to (x_0 OR x_1). x_1 only appears in the triple clause at the end so it has no further influence. x_0 has only one further occurrence in (NOT x_0 OR NOT x_2). This clause is fulfilled by x_0=0 and removed, also having no further influence. Maybe, the NOT was badly rendered or the syntax with the overline not properly explained by me, or am I missing something else?

Thanks again for you help and formatting it this nicely such that I could just do find and replace!

[m-bouville]

You intend to write (NOT x_0 OR NOT x_2), but I get (x_0 OR x_2):

even though the TeX code from MathJax does have the bar : (x_0\vee x_1)\wedge (x_2 \vee x_3)\wedge (\overline{x_0}\vee\overline{x_2})\wedge (\overline{x_1}\vee x_2\vee\overline{x_3})

[d-krupke]

Odd. However, I removed that section anyway in favor of a more high-level description and links to more high-quality material, as I noticed that I won't have the time to bring the text onto a satisfying quality level. Thus, I will close this issue. Thanks again! :)