Originally posted by: sandeepsinghchauhan

tuple TLU
{
Proc a;
int b;
int c;
}
{TLU} P = ...;

constraints:

{

forall(dv in P){

X[dv] <= sum(pl in PL:pl.p == p.p && pl.L== dv.L+1)pl.c*M[dv]*29;

}

}

How to write this constraint in mathematical equation form? where P and PL are constraints.

Hi,

quite difficult to guess what you need to do.

But at least

tuple pl
{
int p;
int L;
int c;
}

{pl} PL={<1,2,4>,<2,3,7>};

tuple Proc
{
int a;
}
tuple TLU
{
Proc a;
int b;
int c;
}
{TLU} P = {<<1>,1,2>,<<2>,1,3>};

int M[P]=[100,100];
dvar int+ X[P];

constraints

{

forall(dv in P){

X[dv] <= sum(pl in PL,p in PL:pl.p == p.p && pl.L== dv.b+1)pl.c*M[dv]*29;

}

}

works

regards

Originally posted by: sandeepsinghchauhan

How to write this constraint in mathematical expression?

X[dv] <= sum(pl in PL,p in PL:pl.p == p.p && pl.L== dv.b+1)pl.c*M[dv]*29;

Can you please clarify what you mean by "mathematical expression"?

Isn't the above already one?

Originally posted by: sandeepsinghchauhan

I mean to mathematical expression is to formulate the equation like the attached image equation. I have confusion due to tuple syntax

" pl in PL,p in PL:pl.p == p.p && pl.L== dv.b+1) "

I still don't get what the problem is. The advantage of OPL is that you can basically copy the expressions verbatim to such a syntax?

Is your problem the dot-operator as in "p.p"? If you define this notation in the surrounding text then I don't see why you cannot use that notation in the formula. If you don't like that, then for a tuple

tuple T {
  int a;
  double b;
}
T tuples[I];

that is indexed by set I in OPL you can define functions "a: I -> natural numbers" and "b: I -> real numbers" so that in the formula you can write a(i) and b(i) when in OPL you would write tuples[i].a and tuples[i].b.

Note that math formulas become a lot more readable if you only use symbols with a single character, i.e., instead of using 'p' and 'pl' maybe use 'p' and 'k'.