Optimizing Multivariate Function with Constraint: Lagrange Multiplier Troubles?

Contingency
Messages
41
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find extrema for f\left( x,y,z \right) ={ x }^{ 3 }+{ y }^{ 3 }+{ z }^{ 3 }
under the constraint g\left( x,y,z \right) ={ x }^{ 2 }+{ y }^{ 2 }+{ z }^{ 2 }=16

Homework Equations


(1) \nabla f=\lambda \nabla g
(2) g\left( x,y,z \right) ={ x }^{ 2 }+{ y }^{ 2 }+{ z }^{ 2 }=16

The Attempt at a Solution


(1)\Rightarrow \left( 3{ x }^{ 2 },3{ y }^{ 2 },3{ z }^{ 2 } \right) =\lambda \left( 2x,2y,2z \right)⇔(3) x=y=z
(3)→(2)\Rightarrow x=y=z=\pm \frac { 4 }{ \sqrt { 3 } }
But subbing in x=y=0, z=4 gives a greater value..
What am I doing wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Contingency said:

Homework Statement


Find extrema for f\left( x,y,z \right) ={ x }^{ 3 }+{ y }^{ 3 }+{ z }^{ 3 }
under the constraint g\left( x,y,z \right) ={ x }^{ 2 }+{ y }^{ 2 }+{ z }^{ 2 }=16


Homework Equations


(1) \nabla f=\lambda \nabla g
(2) g\left( x,y,z \right) ={ x }^{ 2 }+{ y }^{ 2 }+{ z }^{ 2 }=16

The Attempt at a Solution


(1)\Rightarrow \left( 3{ x }^{ 2 },3{ y }^{ 2 },3{ z }^{ 2 } \right) =\lambda \left( 2x,2y,2z \right)⇔(3) x=y=z
(3)→(2)\Rightarrow x=y=z=\pm \frac { 4 }{ \sqrt { 3 } }
But subbing in x=y=0, z=4 gives a greater value..
What am I doing wrong?

##f_{x}=\lambda g_{x} \longrightarrow \: 3x^2 = 2\lambda x,## so either ##x = 0## or ##3x = 2 \lambda##. Similarly for y and z. There are many, many candidate solutions, some of which are maxima, some of which are minima and (perhaps) some of which are constrained saddle points. Besides solutions with x = y = z you also have solutions with, for example, x = 0 and y = z ≠ 0.
 
All clear, thank you!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top