Use lagrange multipliers to find the shortest distance

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on using Lagrange multipliers to determine the shortest distance from a point to the elliptic paraboloid defined by the equation z = x^2 + y^2. A key constraint is established as x^2 + y^2 - z = 0. Participants highlight a common mistake in differentiating the constraint, specifically in the step involving the derivative with respect to z, which should be 2*(z - 1/2) = -λ. Correcting this differentiation is crucial for solving the equation effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrange multipliers
  • Familiarity with elliptic paraboloids
  • Knowledge of partial differentiation
  • Ability to solve equations involving constraints
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of Lagrange multipliers in optimization problems
  • Practice solving problems involving elliptic paraboloids
  • Learn about partial derivatives and their applications
  • Explore techniques for factoring equations in calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on calculus and optimization techniques, as well as anyone interested in applying Lagrange multipliers to geometric problems.

anubis01
Messages
149
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Use lagrange multipliers to find the shortest distance between a point on the elliptic paraboloid z=x^2 +y^2


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7272/cci1902201000000.jpg

I'm not that good with using the equation editor, so I scanned my work.

I'm stuck on the last part where I'm trying to factor the equation to find a solution for \lambda, I can't seem to find a solution that would make the equation zero, which is what i need in order to do the long division to factor that equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your constraint is x^2+y^2-z=0. You differentiate lambda*(x^2+y^2-z). So you have a mistake on step 3. The d/dz equation should be 2*(z-1/2)=(-lambda). That may be why you are having a hard time with the resulting equation.
 
ah, now the equation makes much more sense, thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K