Lagrange multipliers, guidance needed

ilyas.h
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



f(x,y) is function who's mixed 2nd order PDE's are equal.

consider k_f:

Untitled.png


determine the points on the graph of the parabloid f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 above the ellipse 3x^2 + 2y^2 = 1 at which k_f is maximised and minimised.

The Attempt at a Solution



is this the langrange equation that I'd use?

[tex]L(x,y,\lambda )=k_{f}(x,y)-\lambda k_{g}(x,y)[/tex]

or maybe it's just:
[tex]L(x,y,\lambda )=k_{f}(x,y)-\lambda g(x,y)[/tex]

im not sure if I should put the g function (3x^2 + 2y^2 = 1) into the k_f. If I do need to do this, then the algebra is very ugly.
 
on Phys.org
ilyas.h said:

Homework Statement



f(x,y) is function who's mixed 2nd order PDE's are equal.

consider k_f:

Untitled.png


determine the points on the graph of the parabloid f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 above the ellipse 3x^2 + 2y^2 = 1 at which k_f is maximised and minimised.

The Attempt at a Solution



is this the langrange equation that I'd use?

[tex]L(x,y,\lambda )=k_{f}(x,y)-\lambda k_{g}(x,y)[/tex]

or maybe it's just:
[tex]L(x,y,\lambda )=k_{f}(x,y)-\lambda g(x,y)[/tex]

im not sure if I should put the g function (3x^2 + 2y^2 = 1) into the k_f. If I do need to do this, then the algebra is very ugly.

Have you made an attempt to simplify ##k_f(x,y)## as much as possible before using it in a Lagrangian or anywhere else? Far from ugly, the algebra will be very simple and straightforward.
 
Ray Vickson said:
Have you made an attempt to simplify ##k_f(x,y)## as much as possible before using it in a Lagrangian or anywhere else? Far from ugly, the algebra will be very simple and straightforward.

my k_f(x,y) is:

[tex]\frac{4}{(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^2}[/tex]

How would you simplify this/the problem? I tried simplifying with wolfram alpha, it doesn't return anything useful.

my k_g(x,y) is:

[tex]\frac{24}{(1+36x^{2}+16y^{2})^2}[/tex]

please, someone help. It's a bit of an emergency.
 
Last edited:
ilyas.h said:
my k_f(x,y) is:

[tex]\frac{4}{(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^2}[/tex]

How would you simplify this/the problem? I tried simplifying with wolfram alpha, it doesn't return anything useful.

my k_g(x,y) is:

[tex]\frac{24}{(1+36x^{2}+16y^{2})^2}[/tex]

please, someone help. It's a bit of an emergency.

Why do you care about ##k_g##? It has nothing at all to do with the question as originally posed. Also: knowing the form of ##k_f## should allow you to simplify the problem significantly, to get a problem that is much easier than the original one. I cannot say more, without essentially doing the problem for you
 
Ray Vickson said:
Why do you care about ##k_g##? It has nothing at all to do with the question as originally posed. Also: knowing the form of ##k_f## should allow you to simplify the problem significantly, to get a problem that is much easier than the original one. I cannot say more, without essentially doing the problem for you
ok, then the Lagrange equation we are interested in is:

[tex]L(x,y, \lambda)=\frac{4}{(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^2}- \lambda(3x^{2} + 2y^{2}-1)[/tex]
what do you mean by form of k_f(x,y)? could you come up with a mini-alternative example to what you mean, I just don't see how you can simplify it, unless this has something unique to do with the problem as opposed to general algebraic manipulation.
 
ilyas.h said:
ok, then the Lagrange equation we are interested in is:

[tex]L(x,y, \lambda)=\frac{4}{(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^2}- \lambda(3x^{2} + 2y^{2}-1)[/tex]
what do you mean by form of k_f(x,y)? could you come up with a mini-alternative example to what you mean, I just don't see how you can simplify it, unless this has something unique to do with the problem as opposed to general algebraic manipulation.

OK, so don't simplify it; just solve it as-is. It does work, but takes a bit more effort.
 
Ray Vickson said:
OK, so don't simplify it; just solve it as-is. It does work, but takes a bit more effort.

[itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}= (-64x(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 6x\lambda = 0[/itex]

[itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial y}= (-64y(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 4y\lambda = 0[/itex]

[itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda}= 1 - 3x^{2}-2y^{2}=0[/itex]

this leads to a contradiction though, using the first and second equation we get:

[itex](\frac{-32}{3}(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) = \lambda = ((-24)(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3})[/itex]
 
ilyas.h said:
[itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}= (-64x(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 6x\lambda = 0[/itex]

[itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial y}= (-64y(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 4y\lambda = 0[/itex]

[itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda}= 1 - 3x^{2}-2y^{2}=0[/itex]

this leads to a contradiction though, using the first and second equation we get:

[itex](\frac{-32}{3}(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) = \lambda = ((-24)(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3})[/itex]

No contradiction; you have just made some fatal errors.

You can write
[tex]0= L_x = -Rx - 6x \lambda , \; \text{and} \; 0 = L_y = -Ry - 4 y \lambda[/tex]
where ##R = 64/(1 + 4x^2+4 y^2)^3##. You have attempted to convert ##-Rx - 6 x \lambda = 0## into ##-R - 6 \lambda = 0## (similarly for ##y##), and you are NOT allowed to do that without some extra conditions.
 
1. [itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}= (-64x(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 6x\lambda = 0[/itex]

2. [itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial y}= (-64y(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 4y\lambda = 0[/itex]

3. [itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda}= 1 - 3x^{2}-2y^{2}=0[/itex]

if you get an equation for lambda from the first and second equation without dividing through by any variables you get that (using [itex]\lambda[/itex]):

[itex]\frac{32}{3}xy(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{3} = -24xy(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{3}[/itex]

how am I meant to get a relationship between x and y from the above equation that I can utilize in the third equation?
 
  • #10
ilyas.h said:
1. [itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}= (-64x(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 6x\lambda = 0[/itex]

2. [itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial y}= (-64y(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{-3}) - 4y\lambda = 0[/itex]

3. [itex]\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda}= 1 - 3x^{2}-2y^{2}=0[/itex]

if you get an equation for lambda from the first and second equation without dividing through by any variables you get that (using [itex]\lambda[/itex]):

[itex]\frac{32}{3}xy(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{3} = -24xy(1+4x^{2}+4y^{2})^{3}[/itex]

how am I meant to get a relationship between x and y from the above equation that I can utilize in the third equation?

For any real ##x,y## we have ##1 + 4 x^2 + 4 y^2 \geq 1 > 0##, so you are allowed to divide it out on both sides, to end up with
[tex]\frac{32}{3} xy = - 24 xy[/tex]
What does that tell you?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Ray Vickson said:
For any real ##x,y## we have ##1 + 4 x^2 + 4 y^2 \geq 1 > 0##, so you are allowed to divide it out on both sides, to end up with
[tex]\frac{32}{3} xy = - 24 xy[/tex]
What does that tell you?
that x =y = 0, however this cannot be true due to the third equation.

therefore x and y has to take multiple values that satisfy the following relationships:

[itex]\frac{32}{3}xy = -24xy[/itex]

[itex]1 - 3x^{2}-2y^{2}=0[/itex]

going along the right lines?

and thanks for the help so far.
 
  • #12
ilyas.h said:
that x =y = 0, however this cannot be true due to the third equation.

****************************************************************************
That is not what it tells me. Back to the drawing board.

*****************************************************************************

therefore x and y has to take multiple values that satisfy the following relationships:

[itex]\frac{32}{3}xy = -24xy[/itex]

[itex]1 - 3x^{2}-2y^{2}=0[/itex]

going along the right lines?

and thanks for the help so far.
 
  • #13
Ray Vickson said:
...
ok, so then x must equal y which must equal zero.

Or perhaps my calculations are wrong...
 
  • #14
...
 
  • #15
someone please help me!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K