Finding Max/Min Values on Parametric Functions

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the maximum and minimum values of the function F(x,y) = 1 - x^3 - y^2 + x^3y^2 along the parametric curve C defined by x(t) = t^(1/3) and y(t) = t^(1/2). One participant initially attempts to use Lagrange multipliers but struggles with the complexity of the resulting equations. Another participant suggests a simpler approach by substituting the parametric equations directly into F, leading to the expression F(t) = (t - 1)^2, which reveals that the minimum occurs at t = 1. This alternative method avoids the complications of Lagrange multipliers and provides a straightforward solution. The discussion highlights the effectiveness of direct substitution over more complex optimization techniques in this case.
TranscendArcu
Messages
277
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider the function F(x,y) = 1 - x3 - y2 + x3y2. Consider the curve C given parametrically as x(t) = t1/3, y(t) = t1/2 for t ≥ 0. Determine the minimum and maximum of F(x,y) along the curve C.

The Attempt at a Solution


I think this is basically a max/min problem with a constraint function, so I will try to use Lagrange multipliers.

Fx = -3x2 + 3x2y2
Fy = -2y + x3*2y

Fx(t1/3,t1/2) = -3t2/3 + 3t5/3 = 1/(3t2/3) * λ
Fy(t1/3,t1/2) = -2t1/2 + 2t3/2 = 1/(2t1/2) * λ

9t4/9 * (-1 + t) = λ
4t1/4 * (-1 + t) = λ

9t4/9 = 4t1/4

t7/36 = 4/9
t = (4/9)36/7

And at this point I'm thinking there's no way this problem is this disgusting. Ideas on where I went wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TranscendArcu said:

Homework Statement


Consider the function F(x,y) = 1 - x3 - y2 + x3y2. Consider the curve C given parametrically as x(t) = t1/3, y(t) = t1/2 for t ≥ 0. Determine the minimum and maximum of F(x,y) along the curve C.

The Attempt at a Solution


I think this is basically a max/min problem with a constraint function, so I will try to use Lagrange multipliers.

Fx = -3x2 + 3x2y2
Fy = -2y + x3*2y

Fx(t1/3,t1/2) = -3t2/3 + 3t5/3 = 1/(3t2/3) * λ
I don't get how you arrived at the last expression. The expression just before it can be factored to 3t2/3(-1 + t)
TranscendArcu said:
Fy(t1/3,t1/2) = -2t1/2 + 2t3/2 = 1/(2t1/2) * λ
I'm not getting what you're doing here, either.
TranscendArcu said:
9t4/9 * (-1 + t) = λ
4t1/4 * (-1 + t) = λ

9t4/9 = 4t1/4

t7/36 = 4/9
t = (4/9)36/7

And at this point I'm thinking there's no way this problem is this disgusting. Ideas on where I went wrong?
 
I arrived at the last expression by setting

Fx(t1/3,t1/2) = -3t2/3 + 3t5/3

equal to the derivative of x(t), which I found to be 1/(3t2/3), and then multiplied by the constant λ, as required by the Lagrange multiplier method. Similarly, I let Fy(t1/3,t1/2) equal y'(t) multiplied by λ. By factoring, as you suggested, I can solve easily for λ, which is what you see above in,

9t4/9 * (-1 + t) = λ
4t1/4 * (-1 + t) = λ

However, I don't think this method is the proper way to go about answering the problem, since it gives a rather peculiar answer, namely t = (4/9)36/7
 
Personally, I wouldn't use Lagrange multipliers- it seems to me much easier just to substitute the values of x and y in terms of t. With x= t^{1/3} and y= t^{1/2}, F(x,y)= 1- x^3- y^2+ x^3y^2=1- t- t+ t^2= t^2- 2t+ 1= (t-1)^2. Now, you don't even need to differentiate!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K