Calculus of variations changing variables

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in the calculus of variations, specifically focusing on the treatment of a functional and the implications of variable transformations on stationary points.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the impact of constant multiples on stationary points of a functional and question whether these can be ignored in the context of optimization.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing clarifications and exploring the implications of ignoring constant multiples. There is acknowledgment of differing opinions regarding the treatment of negative multiples and their effect on optimization direction.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of integration limits and their correspondence in the context of variable transformations, which may affect the interpretation of the problem.

bobred
Messages
170
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi
I am given the functional

x?S[y]=%5Cint_%7Ba%7D%5E%7Bb%7D%5Cfrac%7Bx%5E%7B3%7Dy%5E%7B%5Cprime2%7D%7D%7By%5E%7B4%7D%7D%20dx.png


I am asked to show that if
png.png
and with an appropriate value for
png.png
that

png.png


Homework Equations


[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


So I get

du%7D=%5Cfrac%7By%5E%7B%5Cprime%7D%28u%29%7D%7B%5Cbeta%20u%5E%7B%5Cbeta-1%7D%7D.png


png.png

png.png


If I set
2.png
then I get

png.png

I think that it is correct but what about the factor of 2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your work looks correct. Unless you do another variable transformation, you will not get rid of the 2.
 
I imagine that since you are trying to find stationary values of this integral, they are not affected by a constant multiple, so you can drop the factor. I think it should be -2, but that's a minor point.
 
PeroK said:
I think it should be -2, but that's a minor point.

This would depend on the order of the integration limits (note that ##a## was the lower integration limit in ##x## but ##A## is the upper integration limit in ##u## - of course I am just making the arbitrary inference that ##a## corresponds to ##A## here ...).
 
Orodruin said:
This would depend on the order of the integration limits (note that ##a## was the lower integration limit in ##x## but ##A## is the upper integration limit in ##u## - of course I am just making the arbitrary inference that ##a## corresponds to ##A## here ...).

Yes, didn't notice that.
 
Thanks guys.
I may have missed this in my notes PeroK but if we are trying to find stationary points of a functional constant multiples can be ignored?
James
 
bobred said:
but if we are trying to find stationary points of a functional constant multiples can be ignored?

Yes, but there is nothing strange about this. It works this way for functions as well, if ##f(x)## has the stationary point ##x=2##, then so does ##2f(x)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bobred
Yes, thanks for the clarification.
James
 
bobred said:
Thanks guys.
I may have missed this in my notes PeroK but if we are trying to find stationary points of a functional constant multiples can be ignored?
James

Positive multiples can be ignored, but omitting negative multiples changes the direction of optimization.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bobred
  • #10
Ray Vickson said:
Positive multiples can be ignored, but omitting negative multiples changes the direction of optimization.

But it does not change the fact that the point is stationary. Just exchanges minima for maxima.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bobred
  • #11
Orodruin said:
But it does not change the fact that the point is stationary. Just exchanges minima for maxima.

Of course, but that is another issue. It certainly changes the second-order tests, so that instead of looking to see if the Hessian is positive-definite, we look instead to see if it is negative-definite. However, when I taught this stuff I recommended that students just "memorize" the conditions for a minimum, then switch the sign of the objective if the problem was a maximization; that eliminates the need for a whole raft of special cases, etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K