Why does the Hessian determinant Δ_p = -1 imply that P(0, 0) is a saddle point?

s3a
Messages
814
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement


For the function f(x, y) = xye^[-(x^2 + y^2)] find all the critical points and classify them each as a relative maximum, a relative minimum, or a saddle point.

Homework Equations


Partial differentiation and Hessian determinants.


The Attempt at a Solution


I get how to compute the derivatives. I also get how to compute the Hessian determinants. Basically, I get all the algebraic details but what I would like to ask about (at least for now) is why does the Hessian determinant Δ_p = -1 imply that P(0, 0) is a saddle point?

Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • Solution.jpg
    Solution.jpg
    41.5 KB · Views: 442
Physics news on Phys.org
s3a said:

Homework Statement


For the function f(x, y) = xye^[-(x^2 + y^2)] find all the critical points and classify them each as a relative maximum, a relative minimum, or a saddle point.

Homework Equations


Partial differentiation and Hessian determinants.


The Attempt at a Solution


I get how to compute the derivatives. I also get how to compute the Hessian determinants. Basically, I get all the algebraic details but what I would like to ask about (at least for now) is why does the Hessian determinant Δ_p = -1 imply that P(0, 0) is a saddle point?

Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!

The Hessian at (x0,y0) gives the quadratic terms in the Taylor expansion at that point. In other words, if we write
f(x,y) \approx f(x_0,y_0) + a_0 (x-x_0) + b_0 (y-y_0)<br /> + \frac{1}{2} r_0 (x-x_0)^2 + s_0 (x-x_0)(y-y_0) + \frac{1}{2} t_0 (y-y_0)^2 + \text{ higher order terms }, the constants r_0, s_0, t_0 are the elements of the Hessian at (x0,y0); that is, the Hessian is
H(x_0,y_0) = \left[ \matrix{r_0&amp;s_0\\s_0&amp;t_0} \right]. So, if the Hessian is H = \left[ \matrix{0&amp;1\\1&amp;0}\right], that means that for small x and y we have f(x,y) \approx xy, and if you plot the surface z = xy around (0,0), you will see that (0,0) is, indeed, a saddle point.

Doesn't your textbook or your course notes have this material?

RGV
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top