What is the value of input information in solving linear programming? The celebrated ellipsoid algorithm tells us that the full information of input constraints is not necessary; the algorithm works as long as there exists an oracle that, on a proposed candidate solution, returns a violation in the format of a separating hyperplane. Can linear programming still be efficiently solved if the returned violation is in other formats? We study this question in a trial-and-error framework: there is an oracle that, upon a proposed solution, returns the index of a violated constraint (with the content of the constraint still hidden). When more than one constraint is violated, two variants in the model are investigated. (1) The oracle returns the index of a "most violated" constraint, measured by the Euclidean distance of the proposed solution and the half-spaces defined by the constraints. In this case, the LP can be efficiently solved. (2) The oracle returns the index of an arbitrary (i.e., worst-case) violated constraint. In this case, we give an algorithm with running time exponential in the number of variables. We then show that the exponential dependence on n is unfortunately necessary even for the query complexity. These results put together shed light on the amount of information that one needs in order to solve a linear program efficiently. The proofs of the results employ a variety of geometric techniques, including McMullen's Upper Bound Theorem, the weighted spherical Voronoi diagram, and the furthest Voronoi diagram. In addition, we give an alternative proof to a conjecture of László Fejes Tóth on bounding the number of disconnected components formed by the union of m convex bodies in R^n. Our proof, inspired by the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem in global differential geometry, is independent of the known and reveals more clear insights into the problem and the bound.