Using Lagrange Multipliers to Solve Constrained Optimization Problems

ElijahRockers
Gold Member
Messages
260
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement



f(x,y) = y2-x2, g(x,y) = x2/4 +y2=9

Homework Equations



\nabla f = \lambda \nabla g

-2x = \lambda \frac{x}{2}
2y = 2\lambda y
\frac{1}{4} x^2 + y^2 = 9

The Attempt at a Solution



I arrived at the three equations above. So according to the first equation, lambda can equal -4. According to the second equation, it can equal 1. After this, I am algebraically lost. The x's and y's cancel themselves out from the first two equations. What does this mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
−2x=λx/2 means EITHER λ=(-4) OR x=0. You have to check both options.
 
ElijahRockers said:

Homework Statement



f(x,y) = y2-x2, g(x,y) = x2/4 +y2=9

Homework Equations



\nabla f = \lambda \nabla g

-2x = \lambda \frac{x}{2}
2y = 2\lambda y
\frac{1}{4} x^2 + y^2 = 9

The Attempt at a Solution



I arrived at the three equations above. So according to the first equation, lambda can equal -4. According to the second equation, it can equal 1. After this, I am algebraically lost. The x's and y's cancel themselves out from the first two equations. What does this mean?

If x ± 0 then λ = -4, so in the second equation you must have y = 0.

RGV
 
Last edited:
Ray Vickson said:


If x ± 0 then λ = 4, so in the second equation you must have y = 0.

RGV


What are you talking about?
 
Dick said:
What are you talking about?

I had the typo λ = 4 instead of the correct λ = -4, but that still implies we need y = 0 to satisfy the second equation (which would be 2y = -8y).

RGV
 
Ok, well a lambda of -4 makes the other equation untrue. So lambda can not be -4 then, right?
 
ElijahRockers said:
Ok, well a lambda of -4 makes the other equation untrue. So lambda can not be -4 then, right?

Yes, it can. lambda can be -4 if y is zero.
 
Duh, ok, I think I got it. Thanks again.
 
Back
Top