Max min, Lagrange's multiplier question

  • Thread starter Thread starter chy1013m1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Max
chy1013m1
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


http://www.individual.utoronto.ca/chy1013m1/a42.jpg

Homework Equations


possibly Lagrange's multiplier..

The Attempt at a Solution


treating S = f(x1, x2, ... , x2006) = x1 * 1^1/3 + x2 * 2^1/3 + ... + x2006 * 2006^1/3

and constrain G(x1, x2 ... x2006) = x1 ^ 3/2 + x2 ^ 3/2 + ... + x2006 ^ 3/2 - (2^1/2 / (2006^1/2 * 2007 ^ 1/2)) = 0

then solve G(x...) = 0
gradient(f) = lambda * gradient(G) , which isn't all that clear what to do next.. any hints ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It isn't clear what to do next? How about completing that equation:
\nabla S= \lambda \cdot \nabla G? (S, not f)
What is \nabla S? What is \nabla G? That should give you 2007 linear equations for x1, x2, . . . , x2006 and \lambda. Fortunately they are almost all separated and solving just a few should give you the general formula.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top