MHB Glamour's questions at Yahoo Answers regarding optimization with constraint

MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here are the questions:

AP Calculus linearization help please?


I don't get this topic so can you guys explain these question as simply as possible? Thanks

View attachment 1900

I have posted a link there to this thread so the OP can view my work.
 

Attachments

  • glamour.jpg
    glamour.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 84
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello Glamour,

36.) We have a point $(x,y)$ which is constrained to line on the curve:

$$x^2-y^2=4$$

Our objective function, that is, what we are seeking to minimize, is the distance between the points $(x,y)$ and $(6,0)$. Now, we may simplify our calculations somewhat if we define our objective function to be the square of this distance. Minimizing the square of the distance will also minimize the distance.

So, our objective function is:

$$f(x,y)=(x-6)^2+y^2$$

Subject to the constraint:

$$g(x,y)=x^2-y^2-4=0$$

First, let's look at a single-variable method. If we solve the constraint for $y^2$, we find:

$$y^2=x^2-4$$

Now, substituting this into our objective function, we get a function of one variable $x$:

$$f(x)=(x-6)^2+x^2-4=x^2-12x+36+x^2-4=2x^2-12x+32=2\left(x^2-6x+16 \right)=2(x+2)(x-8)$$

Pre-Calculus method of optimization:

We observe that because the coefficient of the squared term is positive, this parabolic function opens upwards, thus the vertex will be the global minimum. The axis of symmetry must lie midway between the roots:

$$x=\frac{-2+8}{2}=3$$

Substituting for $x$ into the constraint, we find:

$$y^2=(3)^2-4=5$$

Thus:

$$y=\pm\sqrt{5}$$

And so we conclude the points on the given curve closest to the given point are:

$$\left(3,\pm\sqrt{5} \right)$$

Single variable calculus method of optimization:

Recall we have the objective function:

$$f(x)=2\left(x^2-6x+16 \right)$$

To find the critical value(s), we differentiate with respect to $x$ and equate the result to zero and solve for $x$:

$$f'(x)=2\left(2x-6 \right)=4(x-3)=0\implies x=3$$

Now, we see that the second derivative of $f$ is a positive constant, thus we may conclude the extrema associated with this critical value is the global minimum.

As before, we substitute this critical value into the constraint to obtain the critical points:

$$\left(3,\pm\sqrt{5} \right)$$

Multi-variable method of optimization (Lagrange Multipliers):

Recall our objective function is:

$$f(x,y)=(x-6)^2+y^2$$

Subject to the constraint:

$$g(x,y)=x^2-y^2-4=0$$

This gives rise to the system:

$$2(x-6)=\lambda(2x)$$

$$2y=\lambda(-2y)$$

The second equation implies $\lambda=-1$, and so the first equation becomes:

$$x-6=-x\implies x=3$$

And as before, we substitute this critical value into the constraint to obtain the critical points:

$$\left(3,\pm\sqrt{5} \right)$$

37.) Let's let $x$ and $y$ be the two positive real numbers. Our objective function is their product:

$$f(x,y)=xy$$

And they are subject to the constraint:

$$x^2+y^2=200$$

Now, if we notice that the two variables possesses cyclic symmetry, that is we may exchange them without changing either the objective function or the constraint, then we may conclude immediately that an extremum will occur when $x=y$. Substituting for $y$ into the constraint, we find:

$$x^2+x^2=200$$

$$x^2=100$$

And taking the positive root, we conclude:

$$x=y=10$$

But, if we observe that as either $x$ or $y$ approaches $0$, the other variable must approach $10\sqrt{2}$ and the objective function will then approach zero in either case.

And so we may write:

$$f_{\max}=f(10,10)=10^2=100$$

$$f_{\min}=\lim_{x\to0}(xy)=0$$

However, let's explore how to work this without appealing to cyclic symmetry.

If we solve the constraint for $y$, taking the positive root, we find:

$$y=\sqrt{200-x^2}$$

Substituting this into our objective function, we find:

$$f(x)=x\sqrt{200-x^2}$$

Differentiating with respect to $x$ (using the Product Rule) and equating the result to zero, we find:

$$f'(x)=x\left(\frac{-2x}{2\sqrt{200-x^2}} \right)+(1)\sqrt{200-x^2}=\frac{2\left(100-x^2 \right)}{\sqrt{200-x^2}}=0$$

Now, we observe that the positive root of the denominator is an end-points of the objective function's domain, which is $0<x\le10\sqrt{2}$ and the (positive) root of the numerator is within the domain, so we have 3 critical values to check:

$$f(0)=0$$

$$f(10)=100$$

$$f\left(10\sqrt{2} \right)=0$$

Based on this, we may conclude:

$$f_{\max}=100$$

$$f_{\min}=0$$

Now, let's look at Lagrange multipliers. We have the objective function:

$$f(x,y)=xy$$

Subject to the constraint:

$$g(x,y)=x^2+y^2-200=0$$

Thus, we obtain the system:

$$y=\lambda(2x)$$

$$x=\lambda(2y)$$

This implies:

$$y^2=x^2$$

Substituting this into the constraint, we find:

$$x^2=100$$

And taking the positive root, we obtain

$$x=y=10$$

Now, as in the other methods we explored, we need to look at the end-points of the domain, to find the above critical point $(x,y)=(10,10)$ is at the global maximum, and the end-point values give the global minimum. As so, as before, we then find:

$$f_{\max}=100$$

$$f_{\min}=0$$
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top