Minimization using first differential equation - help

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the minimization of a function involving variables m and n, specifically focusing on the implications of setting the first derivative to zero. Participants explore the conditions under which the minimization occurs, the validity of results, and the constraints involved in the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over obtaining a negative ratio for m/n when minimizing the function, questioning whether there is an error in their equation.
  • Another participant suggests that the function does not yield physical results, indicating that there may be no maxima or minima within the domain where m and n are greater than zero.
  • A third participant introduces the concept of minimizing the function subject to inequality constraints, seeking a relationship between m and n that satisfies these constraints.
  • Further discussion highlights that local extrema may not exist within the open domain, as this would imply m/n is negative, which contradicts the requirement for non-negative values.
  • One participant notes that extremal values can only occur on the borders of the defined region, specifically at n=0, leading to a minimum value at (0,0).
  • Another participant comments on the nature of limits, suggesting that if the function approaches infinity, it cannot have a maximum, and if it approaches negative infinity, it cannot have a minimum.
  • A later reply merges this thread with another, clarifying that the discussion pertains to the first derivative rather than a first differential equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there are issues with finding local extrema within the defined domain, and that the function's behavior at the boundaries is significant. However, there is no consensus on the implications of the negative ratio or the existence of maxima or minima.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the assumptions of the function's domain and the implications of the results obtained from the first derivative. The discussion remains open regarding the mathematical steps and the nature of the constraints.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in optimization problems, particularly those involving constraints and the behavior of functions in mathematical contexts.

suk
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi all
I am trying to minimize a function by setting the first derivative equal to 0. The strange thing is that I end up with a negative result, which cannot be true (for the application). Any ideas on how this could happen? Do I have an error in my equation somewhere?

[tex]f(m)=m+n*(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}[/tex]

(Proceeding with Differentiation on m)[tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]

[tex]\frac{df(m)}{dm}=1+n*(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*ln(\frac{1}{2})*\frac{ln(2)}{n}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{df(m)}{dm}=1+(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*ln(\frac{1}{2})*ln(2)[/tex]

(Equal to zero for Minimization) [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]

[tex]0=1+(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*ln(\frac{1}{2})*ln(2)[/tex]

[tex]1=-(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*(-ln(2))*ln(2)[/tex]

[tex]1=(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*ln(2)*ln(2)[/tex]

[tex]1=(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*(ln(2))^{2}[/tex]

[tex](\frac{1}{(ln(2))^{2}})=(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}[/tex]

(Substituting values for [tex](ln(2))^{2})\Rightarrow[/tex]

[tex](\frac{1}{0.480453015})=(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}[/tex]

[tex]2.08136898=(\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}[/tex]

(Taking natural logarithm on both sides)[tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]

[tex]ln(2.08136898)=(\frac{m}{n}*ln(2))*(ln(\frac{1}{2}))[/tex]

(Substituting values)[tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]

[tex]0.733025841=(\frac{m}{n}*0.693147181)(-0.693147181)[/tex]

[tex](\frac{m}{n})=-1.52569724[/tex]

The result I need is the ratio between m and n (the LHS in the above equation). But, the practical application of this equation doesn't make sense if the ratio is negative. Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not a physical result, so it seems there are no maxima or minima in the domain of your function m,n > 0. Therefore you should check the limits m->0 and m->infinity for the maximum and minimum.
 
Minimizing subject to inequality constraints

Hi all.
I need some help on how to minimize the following equation subject to inequality constraints:
The final result is I need a relation between m and n that minimizes the equation and satisfies the constraints.
Given equation:
[tex]f(m,n)=m+((\frac{1}{2})^{\frac{m}{n}*ln(2)}*n)[/tex]
Constraints:
m>=0
n>=0

Any suggestions?
 
But the limits for the above equation at infinity become undefined. Or am I wrong? How do I then get to the minima?
 
There are no local extrema within the open domain, since you have found that that would imply m/n<0, i.e, any local extremum lies outside the required domain.

Therefore, an extremal value within the region can only lie on the border of the region.

One border is n=0.

At that border, we have f(m,0)=m, having a minimum at m=0, i.e, (0,0) is an extremum at the border. The other border gives the same extremum.

Thus, (0,0) is the only extremum for f, yielding 0 as its minimum value.
 
They can "become undefined" by going to +infinity or -infinity. If they go to + infinity, there cannot be a maximum. If they go to -infinity, there cannot be a minimum. If they do not, if they are bounded, there will "least upper bound" and "greatest lower bound" but not necessarily a maximum or minimum.
 
This same question was also posted under "differential equations". Since it has nothing to do with "differential equations" (you are using the "first derivative", not "first differential equation"), I am merging the two threads here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K