Optimizing fractions and Lagrange Multiplier

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the optimization of fractions involving functions, specifically the use of Lagrange multipliers in minimizing the ratio of two functions, ##f(x)/g(x)##, under certain constraints. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and implications in the context of eigenvalue problems and the Ritz method.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether Lagrange multipliers can be applied to minimize ##f(x)/g(x)## with the constraint ##g=1##.
  • Another participant provides counterexamples, suggesting that the initial assumption may not hold true.
  • A participant introduces the Ritz method for approximating eigenvalues, referencing a specific eigenvalue problem involving linear operators.
  • There is a proposal to express the minimization problem using set notation and to analyze the relationship between two defined minima, ##\lambda_1## and ##\mu_1##.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the positivity of the operator ##M## and how it affects the minimization process.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to proceed with the minimization when the denominator is influenced by the operator ##M##.
  • Another participant suggests a scaling approach for the function to facilitate the minimization process.
  • There is a mention of the Rayleigh-Ritz variational approach in the context of finding the lowest eigenvalues.
  • A final participant introduces a condition involving derivatives of the functions to explore critical points in the optimization process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Lagrange multipliers for the given optimization problem. There is no consensus on the validity of the initial approach, and multiple competing views remain regarding the correct methodology for optimization.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of the positivity of the operator ##M## and the implications of scaling in the context of the minimization problem. Some assumptions and definitions remain implicit, and the discussion does not resolve all mathematical steps involved in the optimization process.

member 428835
Hi PF!

When minimizing some fraction ##f(x)/g(x)## can we use Lagrange multipliers and say we are trying to optimize ##f## subject to the constraint ##g=1##?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, I don't think so, if I understand your question correctly. Why would that be true? Consider ##f(x) = e^{-x}## and ##g(x) = 1 + x^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
Yea those are good counter examples. I am curious because I am reading about the Ritz method for approximating eigenvalues. My book says: consider the eigenvalue problem ##Lu=\lambda Mu## where ##L## and ##M## are linear operators, ##u## is a function and ##\lambda## is the eigenvalue. Then the smallest eigenvalue ##\lambda_1## is given by $$\lambda_1=\min\frac{(Lu,u)}{(Mu,u)}$$ or equivalently $$\lambda_1=\min\limits_{(Mu,u)=1}(Lu,u)$$ where ##(f,g)=\int_a^bfg\,dx##.
 
Ah ok, yes, but this problem has a special structure. Let's write
$$
\lambda_1 := \min_{(Mu,u) \neq 0}\frac{(Lu,u)}{(Mu,u)}
$$
and
$$
\mu_1 := \min_{(Mu,u)=1}(Lu,u)
$$
Your book now claims that ##\lambda_1 = \mu_1##. How would you prove this directly (i.e. no Lagrange multipliers or something like that)?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
Krylov said:
Ah ok, yes, but this problem has a special structure. Let's write
$$
\lambda_1 := \min_{(Mu,u) \neq 0}\frac{(Lu,u)}{(Mu,u)}
$$
and
$$
\mu_1 := \min_{(Mu,u)=1}(Lu,u)
$$
Your book now claims that ##\lambda_1 = \mu_1##. How would you prove this directly (i.e. no Lagrange multipliers or something like that)?
Take a derivative of what we're trying to minimize w.r.t...hmmm well now I'm not so sure. Any ideas?
 
joshmccraney said:
Any ideas?
Yes, but I would like you to puzzle a little bit, too.

You have not given much of the precise context. Let's assume that
  • ##H## is a real Hilbert space with inner product ##(\cdot,\cdot)##,
  • ##L## and ##M## are operators with domains ##D(L) = D(M) = H##,
  • ##M## is a symmetric and positive operator, i.e. ##0 \le (Mu, u)## for all ##u \in H##.
To be safe, I also replace your minima by infima. Let's make the minimization problems a bit more explicit using set notation. Write
$$
\Lambda_1 := \left\{\frac{(Lu,u)}{(Mu,u)}\,:\, u \in H,\, (Mu,u) > 0 \right\}, \qquad M_1 := \left\{(Lv,v)\,:\, v \in H,\, (Mv,v) = 1 \right\},
$$
so ##\lambda_1 = \inf{\Lambda_1}## and ##\mu_1 = \inf{M_1}##. (Note that the positivity of ##M## allowed me to replace the condition ##(Mu,u) \neq 0## by ##(Mu,u) > 0## in ##\Lambda_1##.)

Now observe that ##M_1 \subseteq \Lambda_1##. (This already gives ##\lambda_1 \le \mu_1##.) With a little bit (but not much) more work, you also show the reverse inclusion:
$$
M_1 \supseteq \Lambda_1 \qquad (\ast)
$$
Once this is done, you have ##\Lambda_1 = M_1##, so ##\lambda_1 = \mu_1## follows. If you like, try to deduce ##(\ast)## yourself.

(The essential property you will use, is that both the numerator and the denominator of the original function
$$
u \mapsto \frac{(Lu,u)}{(Mu,u)}
$$
are homogeneous of degree two, so any scaling of ##u## does not change the function value.)
 
Krylov said:
Now observe that ##M_1 \subseteq \Lambda_1##. (This already gives ##\lambda_1 \le \mu_1##.) With a little bit (but not much) more work, you also show the reverse inclusion:
$$
M_1 \supseteq \Lambda_1 \qquad (\ast)
$$
Once this is done, you have ##\Lambda_1 = M_1##, so ##\lambda_1 = \mu_1## follows. If you like, try to deduce ##(\ast)## yourself.

(The essential property you will use, is that both the numerator and the denominator of the original function
$$
u \mapsto \frac{(Lu,u)}{(Mu,u)}
$$
are homogeneous of degree two, so any scaling of ##u## does not change the function value.)
Ok, so I'm thinking if the denominator was ##(u,u)## (a less general case) then all we would have to do is let ##v = u/||u||##. But with the ##M## operator present, I'm unsure how to proceed...I'll think more on this, but feel free to give the spoiler.

On a separate note, I'm interested in this entire process of finding the lowest eigenvalues because I am trying to solve ##Lu=\lambda Mu##. If we instead look at a simpler problem ##Lu=\lambda u## I know the lowest eigenvalue is $$\lambda_1=\inf \frac{(Lu,u)}{(u,u)}.$$ Letting $$u=\sum_{i=1}^N a_i\psi_i$$ where ##\psi_i## are orthonormal basis vectors that satisfy boundary conditions, we deduce
$$(Lu,u) = \sum_{i,k=1}^NF_{ik}a_ia_k:F_{ik}\equiv (L\psi_i,\psi_k)
$$
To find the infimum from above, we can reduce the minimizing problem to minimizing ##(Lu,u)## subject to the constraint ##(u,u)=1##. This evokes Lagrange multipliers. Letting ##\Lambda## be the Lagrange multiplier, take $$\frac{\partial}{\partial a_j}\left( \sum_{i,k=1}^NF_{ik}a_ia_k + \Lambda \sum_{i,k=1}^Na_ia_k(\psi_i,\psi_k)\right)=0\implies\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial a_j}\left( \sum_{i,k=1}^NF_{ik}a_ia_k + \Lambda \sum_{i}^Na_i^2\right)=0\implies\\
\sum_{k=1}^NF_{ki}a_k + \Lambda a_i=0\implies\\
\det(F_{ki}-\Lambda\delta_{ki})=0.
$$
Similarly, when solving the problem ##Lu=\lambda M u##, if we let ##(Mu,u) = \sum_{i,k=1}^ND_{ik}a_ia_k:D_{ik}\equiv (M\psi_i,\psi_k)## then the solution should be $$\det(F_{ki}-\Lambda D_{ki})=0$$ where ##\lambda_1## is the lowest root ##\Lambda##. Does this look correct to you?

I'm under the impression this technique is called the Rayleigh-Ritz variational approach.
 
joshmccraney said:
Ok, so I'm thinking if the denominator was ##(u,u)## (a less general case) then all we would have to do is let ##v = u/||u||##. But with the ##M## operator present, I'm unsure how to proceed...I'll think more on this, but feel free to give the spoiler.
The symmetry and - in particular - the positivity of the operator ##M## imply that ##(u_1,u_2) \mapsto (Mu_1,u_2)## defines a bilinear form on ##H \times H## that has all the properties of an inner product, with the exception that ##(Mu,u) = 0## may not imply ##u = 0##. In any case, for the problem at hand you can just let
$$
v =\frac{1}{\sqrt{(Mu,u)}}u
$$
(In other words, you scale by ##(Mu,u)^{-\frac{1}{2}}## instead of ##(u,u)^{-\frac{1}{2}}##.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835 and Greg Bernhardt
Thanks!
 
  • #10
Id say, if ##f,g## are differentiable, you can use the constraint ## f'g-fg'=g^2 ## when ##g \neq 0 ; g(x) \neq 0 ## or not defined , since extremes are reached at critical points.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K