Simplifying the Distance Formula for Points on the Surface xy^2z^3 = 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter joemama69
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding points on the surface defined by the equation xy2z3 = 2 that are closest to the origin, utilizing concepts from multivariable calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss using the distance formula and its derivative, as well as the method of Lagrange multipliers to find extrema under a constraint. There are attempts to simplify the problem by substituting variables and exploring relationships between them.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing different methods and attempting to clarify their approaches. Some have provided tips on using Lagrange multipliers effectively, while others are exploring substitutions and expressing variables in terms of one another.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential confusion regarding the terminology used (Lagrange multipliers vs. Laplace), and participants are navigating through the complexity of the equations involved without reaching a consensus on the next steps.

joemama69
Messages
390
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Determine the points on the surface xy^2z^3 = 2 that are closest to the origin

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



is there an easier way to do this than to plug it into the distance formula and taking the derivative set to 0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use the square of the distance formula.

Also, and this may be what you are looking for, instead of using xy2z3= 2 to replace one variable with the other two, use "Lagrange multipliers". If we write f(x,y,z)= x2+ y2+ z2, the square of the distance to the origin, and g(x,y,z)= xy2z3= 2, then max or min values of f, for points that satisfy g(x,y,z)= 2 must have [itex]\nabla f[/itex] parallel to [itex]\nabla g[/itex]- one must be a multiple of the other. Setting [itex]\nabla f= \lambda g[/itex] and comparing the components, together with g(x,y,z)= 2, gives 4 equations to solve for x, y, z, and [itex]\lambda[/itex].

Tip: since you are not interested in the value of [itex]\lambda[/itex], and [itex]\lambda[/itex] is simply multiplied by the functions of x, y, and z, often a best first thing to do is to divide one equation by another to eliminate [itex]\lambda[/itex].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I case you need to look that up, Halls meant Lagrange multipliers, not Laplace.
 
Thanks, matt, I have editted that.
 
ok i got a little stuck, here's my work, BTW k = lagrange multiplier

f(x,y,z) = x2 + y2 + z2
g(x,y,z) = xy2z3 = 2

grad f = 2xi + 2yj + 2zk
k grad g = k(y2z3i + 2xyz3j + 3z2xy2k

k = 2x/y2z3
k = 1/xz3
k = 2/3zxy2

and I am lost
 
So you know that 2x/y^2z^3 = 1/xz^3 ie. 2x^2=y^2, and you can subs that in and see what happens.
 
ok so i can sove for each of the variables

y = [tex]\sqrt{2x^2}[/tex]

x = [tex]\sqrt{(y^2)/2}[/tex]

z = [tex]\sqrt{(3y^2)/2}[/tex]

how does that help
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K