Multivariable function optimization inconsistency

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the optimization of a multivariable function dependent on four variables, specifically focusing on minimizing the function within a defined domain. Participants explore the implications of their calculations and the potential inconsistencies that arise during the optimization process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a function ##f(r_1,r_2,q_1,q)## and outlines their method for finding minima with respect to the variables ##r_1, r_2,## and ##q_1##, leading to a derived function that appears to yield different results when evaluated directly at certain values.
  • Another participant expresses difficulty in following the optimization steps and questions the validity of the result ##r_1(r_2^*(q),q)=0##, suggesting that the function may not exist for ##r_1 = 0##.
  • A later reply indicates that the initial participant resolved their calculation error, although they do not specify the nature of the mistake.
  • There is a suggestion that the inconsistency may relate to the different variables being used in the denominators during calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of certain calculations or the existence of the function at specific values. There is acknowledgment of a calculation error, but the implications of this error remain unclear.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the existence of the function for certain values of ##r_1## and the implications of using different variables in the denominators during calculations.

RickRazor
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Missing conceptual detail in optimization problems
Mentor note: For LaTeX here at this site, don't use single $ characters -- they don't work at all. See our LaTeX tutorial from the link at the lower left corner of the input text pane.
I have a function dependent on 4 variables ##f(r_1,r_2,q_1,q)##. I'm looking to minimize this function in the domain ##0\leq r_1 \leq r_2 \leq 1## with respect to the variables ##r_1, r_2## and ##q_1##.

To find the minima, I first solved ##\frac{\partial f}{\partial r_1}=0## and ##\frac{\partial f}{\partial q_1}=0##, giving ##r_1^*(r_2,q)## and ##q_1^*(r_2,q)##. Now I have the function of the form ##f(r_1^*(r_2,q),r_2,q_1^*(r_2,q),q).##

Now I solved ##\frac{\partial f(r_1^*(r_2,q),r_2,q_1^*(r_2,q),q)}{\partial r_2}=0## for ##r_2^*(q)##.

So, the final function is of the form ##f(r_1^*(r_2^*(q),q),r_2^*(q),q_1^*(r_2^*(q),q),q)## which is fine. Now I see later that ##r_1^*(r_2^*(q),q)=0## and ##q_1^*(r_2^*(q),q)=0##.

So, if I directly look for the function ##f(0,r_2,0,q)## and it's minima wrt ##r_2##, it's giving a different result, i.e. I have

##\min_{r_2} f(0,r_2,0,q) \neq f(r_1^*(r_2^*(q),q),r_2^*(q),q_1^*(r_2^*(q),q),q)## even though ##r_1^*(r_2^*(q),q)=0## and ##q_1^*(r_2^*(q),q)=0##. Why is this the case? Are there other simple examples?

The function is
##f(r_1,r_2,q_1,q)=3r_1+r_2+q_1^2/r_1+2(q-q_1)^2/(r_2-r_1)## and

##f(0,r_2,0,q)=r_2+2(q-q_1)^2/r_2##

##r_2^*(q)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}q##,
##r_1(r_2^*(q),q)=0## and ##q_1(r_2^*(q),q)=0##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

I have diffculty following the steps; perhaps you can post them ?

And I don't see how ##r_1(r_2^*(q),q)=0## can come out: ##f## does not exist for ##r_1 = 0## ...

##\ ##
 
I had made some trivial mistake in calculation. Solved it now. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: scottdave
RickRazor said:
I had made some trivial mistake in calculation. Solved it now. Thanks.
I'm glad you solved it.

Did it have to do with having r1 in the denominator in one instance then r2 in the denominator in the second instance?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K