Lagrange Multiplier MethodMaking Sense of the Results

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Lagrange multiplier method with two constraints. The original poster has solved the problem and is trying to clarify the number of valid points derived from their solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster questions the validity of the eight points they derived, considering the constraints. Participants discuss the necessity of checking which points satisfy all constraints and explore the general approach to validating solutions.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in a productive dialogue about the validity of the points found and the importance of back-checking solutions against the constraints. There is acknowledgment of the need for careful verification of solutions.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential extraneous solutions arising from solving subsets of equations, highlighting the complexity of ensuring all constraints are satisfied.

Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement



I am doing this lagrange multiplier problem with 2 constraints. I have completely solved it as shown in the image below. I have found that for lambda = 1 and mu = +/- 1/2 I have that x=+/- [sqrt(2)] y=+/- [1/sqrt(2)] and z=+/- [1/sqrt(2)].

So I am trying to figure out what points I actually have now. It seemed to me that since for x,y,z I have both a positive and negative value, I should have 2*2*2= 8 points to look at. But the solution only lists four. Am I messing this up somehow? Are there not 8 points given by the solution below? Thanks.

TTT1.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's pretty good. But how many of those 8 points satisfy xy=1?
 
Dick said:
That's pretty good. But how many of those 8 points satisfy xy=1?

Ah ha. I see now. Thanks Dick! Is there a general approach to keeping track of which points are valid for all constraints? Or do you just solve the n equations for n unknowns and then back-check? I know there is probably no blanket rule.. but is that the approach more times than not?
 
Saladsamurai said:
Ah ha. I see now. Thanks Dick! Is there a general approach to keeping track of which points are valid for all constraints? Or do you just solve the n equations for n unknowns and then back-check? I know there is probably no blanket rule.. but is that the approach more times than not?

You've got it. No, I don't think there's any more general way than back checking. Your solutions from solving subsets of the equations may give you extraneous solutions. Just back check.
 
Thanks a bunch! :smile:
 
Haha! Nice one cronxeh :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K