• We present an O(n^6 ) linear programming model for the traveling salesman (TSP) and quadratic assignment (QAP) problems. The basic model is developed within the framework of the TSP. It does not involve the city-to-city variables-based, traditional TSP polytope referred to in the literature as "the TSP polytope." We do not model explicit Hamiltonian cycles of the cities. Instead, we use a time-dependent abstraction of TSP tours and develop a direct extended formulation of the linear assignment problem (LAP) polytope. The model is exact in the sense that it has integral extreme points which are in one-to-one correspondence with TSP tours. It can be solved optimally using any linear programming (LP) solver, hence offering a new (incidental) proof of the equality of the computational complexity classes "P" and "NP." The extensions of the model to the time-dependent traveling salesman problem (TDTSP) as well as the quadratic assignment problem (QAP) are straightforward. The reasons for the non-applicability of existing negative extended formulations results for "the TSP polytope" to the model in this paper as well as our software implementation and the computational experimentation we conducted are briefly discussed.
  • In this paper, we introduce the notion of augmentation for polytopes and use it to show the error in two presumptions that have been key in arriving at over-reaching/over-scoped claims of "impossibility" in recent extended formulations (EF) developments. One of these presumptions is that: "If Polytopes P and Q are described in the spaces of variables x and y respectively, and there exists a linear map x=Ay between the feasible sets of P and Q, then Q is an EF of P". The other is: "(An augmentation of Polytope A projects to Polytope B) ==> (The external descriptions of A and B are related)". We provide counter-examples to these presumptions, and show that in general: (1) If polytopes can always be arbitrarily augmented for the purpose of establishing EF relations, then the notion of EF becomes degenerate/meaningless in some cases, and that: (2) The statement: "(Polytope B is the projection of an augmentation of Polytope A) ==> (Polytope B is the projection of Polytope A)" is not true in general (although, as we show, the converse statement, "(B is the projection of A) ==> (B is the projection of every augmentation of A)", is true in general). We illustrate some of the ideas using the minimum spanning tree problem, as well as the "lower bounds" developments in Fiorini et al. (2011; 2012), in particular.