.
a predator requires 21 units of food A 12 units of food B, and 21 units of food C as its average daily consumption.
these requirements are satisfied by feeling on two prey species.
one prey of species A, provides 6,2 and 3 units of food of A,B, and C, respectively.
to capture and digest a prey of species B provides 3,3 and 5 units of A, B and C, respectively.
to capture and digest a prey of species A requires 7 units of energy, on the average.
the corresponding energy.
How many preys of each should the predator capture to meet its food requirement with minimum expenditure?
find the objective function, constraints and max/min value.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding this "problem" in the post, I have several notices.
(1) The meaning of the post is unclear. The species are mixed with food (go under the same names).
It turns the problem into the soup of words.
Undoubtedly, it is IMPOSSIBLE to consider such a text as a Math problem.
(2) How @CPhill interprets it - - - it does not matter.
If the problem's meaning is unclear from its text, interpretations will not help.
(3) In his post, @CPhill writes for the energy function to minimize
Z = 7x + 5y.
In the text, NOTHING does point to this formula.
So, it makes the solution by @CPhill IRRELEVANT.
(4) In the solution, @CPhill proposes to make a lot of unnecessary job calculating the objective
function in corner points that do not belong to the feasibility domain.
The CONCLUSIONS:
The text in the post CAN NOT be interpreted as a Math problem.
This "problem's" right place is in the garbage bin.
Interpretation by @CPhill is not adequate and is not relevant to the problem.
The solution in the post by @CPhill is WRONG WAY TEACHING.
For the safety of you mind, simply ignore the problem and the post by @CPhill.
* * * * DO NOT CONSIDER THIS GIBBERISH seriously. * * * *
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Regarding the post by @CPhill . . .
Keep in mind that @CPhill is a pseudonym for the Google artificial intelligence.
The artificial intelligence is like a baby now. It is in the experimental stage
of development and can make mistakes and produce nonsense without any embarrassment.
It has no feeling of shame - it is shameless.
This time, again, it made an error.
Although the @CPhill' solution are copy-paste Google AI solutions, there is one essential difference.
Every time, Google AI makes a note at the end of its solutions that Google AI is experimental
and can make errors/mistakes.
All @CPhill' solutions are copy-paste of Google AI solutions, with one difference:
@PChill never makes this notice and never says that his solutions are copy-past that of Google.
So, he NEVER SAYS TRUTH.
Every time, @CPhill embarrassed to tell the truth.
But I am not embarrassing to tell the truth, as it is my duty at this forum.
And the last my comment.
When you obtain such posts from @CPhill, remember, that NOBODY is responsible for their correctness,
until the specialists and experts will check and confirm their correctness.
Without it, their reliability is ZERO and their creadability is ZERO, too.
Plus one comment specially for the developers of this AI.
The most weak feature of your current development is that this current AI
is unable to recognize idiotic "problems" and to distinct them from regular Math problems.