## How Linear Programming Began

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

George Dantzig explains how linear programming began:

Seeing that economists did not have a method of solution, I next decided to try my own luck at finding an algorithm. I owe a great debt to Jerzy Neyman, the leading mathematical statistician of his day, who guided my graduate work at Berkeley. My thesis was on two famous unsolved problems in mathematical statistics which I mistakenly thought were a homework assignment and solved. One of the results, published jointly with Abraham Wald, was on the Neyman-Pearson Lemma. In today’s terminology, this part of my thesis was on the existence of Lagrange multipliers (or dual variables) for a semi-infinite linear program whose variables were bounded between zero and one and satisfied linear constraints expressed in the form of Lebesgue integrals. There was also a linear objective to be extremized.

Luckily the particular geometry used in my thesis was the one associated with the columns of the matrix instead of its rows. This column geometry gave me the insight which led me to believe that the simplex method would be a very efficient solution technique. I earlier had rejected the method when I viewed it in the row geometry because running around the outside edges seemed so unpromising.

I proposed the simplex method in the summer 1947. But it took nearly a year before my colleagues and I in the Pentagon realized just how powerful the method really was. In the meantime, I decided to consult with the great, Johnny von Neumann to see what he could suggest in the way of solution techniques. He was considered by many as the leading mathematician in the world. On October 3, 1947, 1 met him for the first time at the Institute Advanced Study at Princeton.

John von Neumann made a strong impression on everyone. People came to him for help with their problems because of his great insight. In the initial stages of the development of a new field like linear programming, atomic physics, computers, or whatever, his advice proved invaluable. After these fields were developed in greater depth, however, it became more difficult for him to make the same spectacular contributions. I guess everyone has a finite capacity, and Johnny was no exception.

I remember trying to describe to von Neumann (as I would to an ordinary mortal) the Air Force problem. I began with the formulation of the linear programming model in terms of activities and items, etc. He did something which I believe was uncharacteristic of him. “Get to the point,” he snapped at me impatiently. Having at times a somewhat low kindling point, I said to myself, “OK, if he wants a quickie, then that’s what he’ll get.” In under one minute I slapped on the blackboard a geometric and algebraic version of the problem. Von Neumann stood up and said, “Oh that!” Then, for the next hour and a half, he proceeded to give me a lecture on the mathematical theory of linear programs.

At one point, seeing me sitting there with my eyes popping and my mouth open (after all I had searched the literature and found nothing), von Neumann said:

I don’t want you to think I am pulling all this out of my sleeve on the spur of the moment like a magician. I have recently completed a book with Oscar Morgenstern on the theory of games. What I am doing is conjecturing that the two problems are equivalent. The theory that I am outlining is an analogue to the one we have developed for games.