Lagrange Multipliers Question?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Lagrange multipliers to find the extrema of the function f(x,y,z) = x^2 - y - z under the constraint x^2 - y^2 + z = 0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the gradients of the function and the constraint, questioning the assumptions made regarding the values of lambda and the variables involved.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the correct formulation of the Lagrange multiplier method, while others have identified potential assumptions that may not hold. There is an ongoing exploration of different interpretations of the equations involved.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted assumption regarding the values of x, y, and z, particularly whether they can be zero, which is under discussion. Additionally, the terminology and formulation of the Lagrange multiplier equations are being clarified among participants.

TheSpaceGuy
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Lagrange Multipliers Question?

Homework Statement


Find the minimum and maximum values of the function subject to the given constraint.

f (x,y,z) = x^2 - y - z, x^2 - y^2 +z = 0



The Attempt at a Solution



Okay this is what I did:

Gradient f = <2x,-1,-1> Gradient g = <2x,-2y,1>

Gradient f = (Lambda) Gradient g
<2x,-1,-1> = L <2x,-2y,1>

2x = L(2x) L=1
-1=-L(2y)
-1=L(1)

by this Lambda = 1 and -1? How can this be, am I doing something wrong? Thanks for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I haven't seen this terminology before, but are you sure it isn't Gradient f = - (Lambda) Gradient g?

In any event, look more closely at your first equation. What assumption did you make to obtain the value for L?
 
Last edited:


I checked and yes I got the formula right. To get my values for lambda all I did was set the two gradients with g multiplied lambda. This gives L = 1, -1. I don't know how to get the values of x , y , and z from this which is what I need.
 


I'm referring to the following step:

2x = L(2x) L=1

What assumption is implied about x and is the assumption valid?
 


There's a conceptual mistake here:
Gradient f = (Lambda) Gradient g

<2x,-1,-1> = L <2x,-2y,1>

You have a function:

[tex]F(x,y,z)= x^2 - y - z[/tex]

and a vinculum which will be equal to zero:

[tex]G(x,y,z)= x^2 - y^2 +z[/tex]

build the Lagrange formula like this

[tex]H(x,y,z)= F(x,y,z) + \lambda G(x,y,z)[/tex]

Then take the partial derivatives and equal them to zero

[tex]H_x = 0[/tex]

[tex]H_y = 0[/tex]

[tex]H_z = 0[/tex]

[tex]H_{\lambda} = 0[/tex]

In doing all this you have missed one thing.
 


Hmm wow I didn't know you could do it that way. But anyway I figured out what I was doing wrong in regards to my method. I was assuming that x, y, and z were not zero. I can't automatically do that.
 


The two methods, [itex]\nabla F= \lambda \nabla G[/itex] and [itex]\nabla F+ \lambda\nabla G= 0[/itex] are exactly the same. They just change the sign on [itex]\lambda[/itex] which is irrelevant to the answer.

[itex]F= x^2- y- z[/itex] so [itex]\nabla F= 2x\vec{i}- \vec{j}-\vec{k}[/itex]

[itex]G= x^2- y^2+ z[/itex] so [itex]\nabla G= 2x\vec{i}- 2y\vec{j}+ \vec{k}[/itex]

[itex]\nabla F= \lambda\nabla G[/itex] becomes [itex]2x= 2\lambda x[/itex], [itex]-1= -2\lambda y[/itex] and [itex]-1= \lambda[/itex]. It does NOT follow from that that [itex]\lambda[/itex] is "both 1 and -1". In particular, the first equation, [itex]2\lambda x= 2x[/itex], does NOT mean [itex]\lambda= 1[/itex]. It means either [itex]\lambda= 1[/itex] or x= 0.

The last equation tells you that [itex]\lambda= -1[/itex]. Putting that into the second equation, [itex]-2\lambda y= 2y= -1[/itex] so that y= -1/2. Putting [itex]\lambda= -1[/itex] into the first equation, [itex]2x= 2x[/itex] we get, as I said before, x= 0.

Since we must have [itex]G(x, y, z)= x^2- y^2+ z= 0[/itex], x= 0, y= -1/2 give z= 1/4.
 


Yes, Halls of Ivy is right.
Thank you for the comment.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K