Recursive Lagrange multipliers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Lagrange multipliers to find the maximum and minimum values of the function x² + y², subject to the constraint x² - 2x + y² - 4y = 0. The original poster expresses difficulty in handling what they describe as a "recursive" situation in the multiplier equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to set up the Lagrange multiplier equations but struggles with isolating variables and expresses uncertainty about their algebraic manipulations. Some participants question the characterization of the problem as "recursive" and provide clarifications on the setup of the equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering insights and alternative approaches. One participant suggests eliminating the multiplier by dividing the equations, while another raises a question regarding a simplification made in the process. The original poster indicates progress after following the suggestions, although there is still some uncertainty about the correctness of their findings.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions a potential algebraic misstep and expresses frustration with the problem, indicating that they have been struggling with similar issues for several days. There is a sense of ongoing exploration without a definitive conclusion reached by all participants.

hiigaranace
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hey all, this is my first post, so I apologize in advance if data are missing/format is strange/etc.

I'm working with lagrange multipliers, and I can get to the answer about half the time. The problem is, I'm not really sure how to deal with things when the multiplier equation becomes recursive, like in this problem:

Homework Statement


"Find the maximum and minimum values of x2+y2 subject to the constraint x2-2x+y2-4y=0"

Homework Equations


[tex]\grad{}[/tex]f(x, y) = [tex]\lambda\grad{}[/tex]g(x, y)
...those are supposed to be gradient symbols. They're a little different from what I'm used to seeing, but that's apparently what LaTeX thinks it should be.

The Attempt at a Solution


I let f be the equation to maximize and minimize, and let g the constraint equation. this gave me:

2x[tex]\vec{i}[/tex]+2y[tex]\vec{j}[/tex] = [tex]\lambda[/tex](2x-2)[tex]\vec{i}[/tex]+[tex]\lambda[/tex](2y-4)[tex]\vec{j}[/tex]

Then, you split it to deal with one direction at a time, giving two equations:

2x = [tex]\lambda[/tex](2x-2) 2y=[tex]\lambda[/tex](2y-4)

Annnnnnnd here's where I get stuck. I need to get everything in terms of one variable so I can put that into the constraint equation and solve for the coordinates, but when I try that, I either get X or Y on both sides of the equation (like above), or I wind up with the lambda isolated, but an expression for X or Y that necessitates their presence in the equation. I suspect I'm making some algebraic misstep (so weird, I can do calc, but algebra always kills me), rather than a calculus one, but I'm not sure. What should I do next?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know what you mean by "recursive" here. There does not appear to me to be anything "recursive" here.

You want to maximize [itex]f(x,y)= x^2+ y^2[/itex] subject to the constraint that [itex]g(x,y)= x^2- 2x+ y^2- 4y= 0[/itex]

Okay, [itex]\nabla f= 2x\vec{i}+ 2y\vec{j}[/itex] and [itex]\nabla g= (2x- 2)\vec{i}+ (2x- 4)\vec{j}[/itex]. At a max or min with this constraint, we must have [itex]2x\vec{i}+ 2y\vec{j}= \lambda((2x-2)\vec{i}+ (2y-4)\vec{j})[/itex].

That is, we must have [itex]2x= \lambda(2x- 2)[/itex] and [itex]2y= \lambda(2y- 4)[/itex].

That, so far, is exactly what you have. One good way to solve those is to eliminate [itex]\lambda[/itex] by dividing one equation by the other.
x/y= (x-1)/(y- 2) or xy- 2x= xy- y so that xy= -y or y(x+ 1)= 0

I get four distinct points.
 
I follow what you said, and I had a feeling it was something simple like that. I am slightly confused, though, about one of your simplifications of the division. You said that

xy-2x = xy-y gives xy = -y.

Shouldn't that be y = 2x, instead? If not, I'm not quite seeing how you got there.
 
Never mind, I pressed ahead and got the answer. Thanks! Problems like this have been driving me nuts for a couple of days now...
 
hiigaranace said:
Never mind, I pressed ahead and got the answer. Thanks! Problems like this have been driving me nuts for a couple of days now...

I've gotten y = 2x too ... Is it correct?
 
icystrike said:
I've gotten y = 2x too ... Is it correct?

You're doing it right, icy, don't worry.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K