MHB Molly's question at Yahoo Questions regarding constrained optimization

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the minimum value of the function f(x,y) = 12x² + 7y² + 6xy + 8x + 2y + 4 under the constraint g(x,y) = 4x² + 2xy - 1 = 0 using Lagrange multipliers. The calculations reveal two critical points: (±1/2, 0), leading to function values of 3 and 11. The minimum value is determined to be 3 at the point (-1/2, 0). Further analysis shows that the function is unbounded as x approaches ±∞, confirming that the relative minimum is indeed the global minimum. The discussion concludes that while there is a relative maximum, it does not qualify as a global maximum.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here is the question:

Constrained optimization and Lagrange Multipliers? Help please!?


Hi! Please help me with the question below!

Find the minimum value of the function f(x,y)=12x^2+7y^2+6xy+8x+2y+4 subject to the constraint 4x^2+2xy=1

Minimum Value: _____

THANK YOU! :)

I have posted a link there to this thread so the OP can view my work.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello Molly,

We are given the objective function:

$$f(x,y)=12x^2+7y^2+6xy+8x+2y+4$$

subject to the constraint:

$$g(x,y)=4x^2+2xy-1=0$$

Now, using Lagrange multipliers, we obtain:

$$24x+6y+8=\lambda\left(8x+2y \right)$$

$$14y+6x+2=\lambda\left(2x \right)$$

This implies:

$$\lambda=\frac{12x+3y+4}{4x+y}=\frac{7y+3x+1}{x}$$

Cross-multiplication yields:

$$12x^2+3xy+4x=28xy+12x^2+4x+7y^2+3xy+y$$

This reduces to:

$$0=28xy+7y^2+y=y(28x+7y+1)$$

This gives us two cases to consider:

i) $$y=0$$

Substituting into the constraint, we find:

$$4x^2-1=0\implies x=\pm\frac{1}{2}$$

Hence, we find the two critical points:

$$\left(0,\pm\frac{1}{2} \right)$$

ii) $$28x+7y+1=0\implies y=-\frac{28x+1}{7}$$

Substituting into the constraint, we find:

$$4x^2+2x\left(-\frac{28x+1}{7} \right)-1=0$$

Multiply through by 7:

$$28x^2-56x^2-2x-7=0$$

$$28x^2+2x+7=0$$

Observing that the discriminant is negative, we know there are no real roots, and so this case yields no critical points.

Now, we check the value of the objective function at the two critical points found in the first case:

$$f\left(-\frac{1}{2},0 \right)=3+0+0-4+0+4=3$$

$$f\left(\frac{1}{2},0 \right)=3+0+0+4+0+4=11$$

And so we may conclude that:

$$f_{\min}=f\left(-\frac{1}{2},0 \right)=3$$

We cannot conclude that the other point is a global maximum because the constraint gives us:

$$y=\frac{1}{2x}-2x$$

and substitution into the objective function gives us:

$$f(x)=28x^2+4x-7+\frac{4x+7}{4x^2}$$

which is unbounded as $$x\to\pm\infty$$

If we differentiate this function, and equate the result to zero, we obtain:

$$f'(x)=(2x+1)(2x-1)\left(28x^2+2x+7 \right)=0$$

As before, the yields the critical values:

$$x=\pm\frac{1}{2}$$

Now, the second derivative of the objective function in $x$ is:

$$f''(x)=448x^3+24x^2-2$$

And we find that:

$$f''\left(-\frac{1}{2} \right)<0$$

$$f''\left(\frac{1}{2} \right)>0$$

And so we know there is a relative minimum and a relative maximum, but given the behavior of the function at the extremes, i.e.:

$$\lim_{x\to\pm\infty}f(x)=\infty$$

We must therefore conclude that the relative minimum is the global minimum while the relative maximum is not the global maximum.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top