Optimizing the ratio of two integrals

  • Thread starter Thread starter aetherane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrals Ratio
aetherane
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Frequently, I have encountered optimization problems which involve finding the optimal function to maximize the ratio of two integrals (bounds from 0 to infinity). e.g: Maximize \frac{\int_0^\infty (g(x))^3 g'(x) dx}{\int_0^\infty (g(x))^3(1-g(x)) dx}

I am aware that variational calculus works on a single integral, but is there a general approach that might work for these types of problems?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes, variational calculus!


Define:
F(\epsilon)=\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}(g(x)+\epsilon\gamma(x))^{3}(g^{,}(x)+\epsilon\gamma^{,}(x))dx}{\int_{0}^{\infty}(g(x)+\epsilon\gamma(x))^{3}(1-(g(x)+\epsilon\gamma(x)))dx}
where \gamma(x) is an arbitrary function that vanishes at the boundaries.

Now, a necessary condition in order to let \epsilon=0 be the maximum of F would be that \frac{dF}{d\epsilon}_{\epsilon=0}=0

This condition will yield the differential equation g must satisfy.
 
Last edited:
To treat this problem in a somewhat general manner, let us assume that y's boundary values are fixed, say
y(a)=y_{a},y(b)=y_{b}
We look then at the set of comparison functions:
Y(x,\epsilon)=y(x)+\epsilon\gamma(x),\gamma(a)=\gamma(b)=0
That is, the \gamma-function is arbitrary except for vanishing at the boundaries.

We have a functional,
F(\epsilon)=\frac{\int_{a}^{b}N(Y,Y^{,},x)dx}{\int_{a}^{b}D(Y,Y^{,},x)dx}
and also define the quantities:
n=\int_{a}^{b}N(y,y^{,},x)dx, d=\int_{a}^{b}D(y,y^{,},x)dx (*)

Now, differentiating F with respect to \epsilon and then setting thederivative of F equal to 0 at \epsilon=0 yields, with some rearrangement:
\frac{\int_{a}^{b}(d(\frac{\partial{N}}{\partial{y}}-\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\partial{N}}{\partial{y^{,}}})-n(\frac{\partial{D}}{\partial{y}}-\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\partial{D}}{\partial{y^{,}}}))\gamma(x)dx}{d^{2}}=0

Thus, we get the following diff.eq problem to solve:
d(\frac{\partial{N}}{\partial{y}}-\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\partial{N}}{\partial{y^{,}}})-n(\frac{\partial{D}}{\partial{y}}-\frac{d}{dx}\frac{\partial{D}}{\partial{y^{,}}})=0, y(a)=y_{a},y(b)=y_{b}

The solution of this diff.eq problem will typically be a function of the two parameters d and n, (in addition of course, of being a function in x)!

In order to determine d and n, (*) represents a system of algebraic equations in d and n, so we solve this system to complete our solution.
 
Last edited:
In your case, the differential equation becomes exceedingly simple:
3g^{2}-4g^{3}=0
where d and n vanish as determining parameters of the equation, and we retain an algebraic equation in g.

Thus, the only acceptable solution for a stationary point for the functional is g(x)=\frac{3}{4}

However, since this yields a divergent integral in the denominator, that particular ratio cannot be said to have a maximizing (or minimizing) function.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top