Minimization problem using partial derivatives

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on optimizing a distance equation involving three variables, specifically the function f(x,y,z) = x^2 + y^2 + z^2. A critical point at (0,0,0) is identified, but the graph of xyz^2 suggests this may not be the correct approach. Participants emphasize the need to reference the specific surface when applying partial derivatives and suggest revisiting textbook methods. The correct distance to the surface is proposed to be 2√2, confirmed by Wolfram Alpha. The use of Lagrange multipliers is also mentioned as a potential method for solving the problem.
Leo Liu
Messages
353
Reaction score
156
Homework Statement
.
Relevant Equations
.
1613524274511.png

a) ONLY
The common way to solve this problem is minimizing the two-variable equation after using the substitution ##z^2=1/(xy)##. Yet I wondered if it is possible to optimize the distance equation with three varibles. So I wrote the following equations:
Distance:
$$f(x,y,z)=s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2$$
$$\begin{cases}f_x=2x\\ f_y=2y\\ f_z=2z\end{cases}\implies (0,0,0) \text{ is a critical point}$$
But the graph of ##xyz^2## says otherwise. Why?
1613525166653.png

Thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz and docnet
Physics news on Phys.org
f(x,y,z)=f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+\frac{1}{xy}

Another approach is using polar coordinates. As for a)
r^3\ \sin^2\theta \cos^2\theta\cos\phi \sin\phi=1
 
Last edited:
Leo Liu said:
Homework Statement:: .
Relevant Equations:: .

View attachment 278155
a) ONLY
The common way to solve this problem is minimizing the two-variable equation after using the substitution ##z^2=1/(xy)##. Yet I wondered if it is possible to optimize the distance equation with three varibles. So I wrote the following equations:
Distance:
$$f(x,y,z)=s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2$$
$$\begin{cases}f_x=2x\\ f_y=2y\\ f_z=2z\end{cases}\implies (0,0,0) \text{ is a critical point}$$
But the graph of ##xyz^2## says otherwise. Why?
View attachment 278157
Thank you.

Realise it's just wrong thinking - you got your fx etc. from the s2 equation with no reference at all to what the surface you are asked about is. By that criterion the distance from the origin to every surface would be 0 !

So you need to go back to your textbook to recall what the method is.

For surface a) I get this distance to be 2√2 but I can have got it wrong too.
 
  • Like
Likes Leo Liu and docnet
epenguin said:
Realise it's just wrong thinking - you got your fx etc. from the s2 equation with no reference at all to what the surface you are asked about is. By that criterion the distance from the origin to every surface would be 0 !

So you need to go back to your textbook to recall what the method is.

For surface a) I get this distance to be 2√2 but I can have got it wrong too.
Wolfram says ##2\sqrt{2}## is correct.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=895957d708a52242400f57757f81e627
 
This looks like a problem that can be done using Lagrange multipliers: Minimize ## x^2+y^2+z^2## subject to the constraint of belonging to the respective surface.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K