I Optimizing fractions and Lagrange Multiplier

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 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 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 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

Back
Top