MHB Zhina's question at Yahoo Answers regarding optimization subject to constraint

AI Thread Summary
Zhina's question involves optimizing the volume of a box formed by cutting a 24-foot wire into 12 pieces to create a rectangular frame, with the base length being twice the width. The problem is approached using both Lagrange multipliers and single-variable calculus, leading to the conclusion that the maximum volume is achieved when the width is 4/3 feet. The dimensions of the box for maximum volume are calculated as 8/3 feet in length, 4/3 feet in width, and 2 feet in height. The maximum volume is determined to be 64/9 cubic feet. The discussion highlights the importance of accurately interpreting constraints in optimization problems.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Here is the question:

CALCULUS needHELP WITH THIS PLEASE! APPRECIAT EIT -?

please DON'T GO AWAY WHEN YOU SEE THIS! HELP NEEDED THANKS

a 24 foot wire is cut into 12 pieces which are welded together to form a rectangular frame whose base is twice as long than it is wide .
the frame is than covered with paper to form a box . find the volume of the largest possible box that can be made this way

Please help with this thanks in advance so much

Here is a link to the question:

CALCULUS needHELP WITH THIS PLEASE! APPRECIAT EIT -? - Yahoo! Answers

I have posted a link there to this topic so the OP can find my response.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello Zhina,

Let's let the dimensions of the box be $x,y,z$ (all positive) where the volume (the objective function) is:

$$V(x,y,z)=xyz$$

Each dimension will require 4 pieces of wire, so we have the constraint:

$$4x+4y+4z=4L$$ (where $4L$ is the total length of the wire)

$$g(x,y,z)=x+y+z-L=0$$

We also have the constraint (if we choose $y$ to be the length, and $x$ to be the width)

$$h(x,y,z)=y-2x=0$$

Using Lagrange multipliers, we obtain the system:

$$yz=\lambda-2\mu$$

$$xz=\lambda+\mu$$

$$xy=\lambda$$

which implies:

$$\lambda=yz+2\mu=xz-\mu=xy$$

From:

$$yz+2\mu=xz-\mu$$

we obtain:

$$\mu=\frac{xz-yz}{3}$$

Now we also have:

$$xz-\mu=xy$$

$$\mu=xz-xy$$

and hence, we find:

$$\frac{xz-yz}{3}=xz-xy$$

$$xz-yz=3xz-3xy$$

$$-yz=2xz-3xy$$

$$x=\frac{yz}{3y-2z}$$

Substituting for $x$ into the second constraint, we find:

$$y=\frac{2yz}{3y-2z}$$

Since $y\ne0$, we may divide through by $y$ to obtain:

$$y=\frac{4z}{3}$$

Substituting for $y$ into the formula for $x$, we obtain:

$$x=\frac{\left(\frac{4z}{3} \right)z}{3\left(\frac{4z}{3} \right)-2z}=\frac{2z}{3}$$

Now, substituting for $x$ and $y$ into the first constraint, we obtain:

$$\frac{2z}{3}+\frac{4z}{3}+z=L$$

$$z=\frac{L}{3},\,y=\frac{4L}{9},\,x=\frac{2L}{9}$$

We know this is a maximum, as the other critical point is $$\left(0,0,4L \right)$$ giving:

$$V_{\min}=0\text{ ft}^3$$

Thus, we find:

$$V_{\max}=V\left(\frac{2L}{9},\frac{4L}{9},\frac{L}{3} \right)=3\left(\frac{2L}{9} \right)^3$$

Plugging in the given $$L=6\text{ ft}$$, we find:

$$V_{\max}=3\left(\frac{2(6\text{ ft})}{9} \right)^3=\frac{64}{9}\,\text{ ft}^3$$

To Zhina and any other guests viewing this topic, I invite and encourage you to post other optimization questions in our http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f10/ forum.

Best Regards,

Mark.
 
Last edited:
This can actually be solved using single variable calculus. We know that the twelve pieces form the edges of a box, and we also know that we are making these pieces from a 24ft long wire. If we call the length "l", the width "w" and the height "h", then we have

[math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} 4l + 4w + 4h &= 24 \end{align*}[/math]

We are also told that the length is twice the width, so [math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} l = 2w \end{align*}[/math], and from there we can see that

[math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} 4 \left( 2w \right) + 4w + 4h &= 24 \\ 12w + 4h &= 24 \\ 4h &= 24 - 12w \\ h &= 6 - 3w \end{align*}[/math]

The volume of the box can be found using

[math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} V &= lwh \\ &= 2w \left( w \right) \left( 6 - 3w \right) \\ &= 12w^2 - 6w^3 \end{align*}[/math]

The maximum volume is where the derivative is 0, so

[math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{dV}{dw} &= 24w - 18w^2 \\ 0 &= 24w - 18w^2 \\ 0 &= 6w \left( 4 - 3w \right) \\ w = 0 \textrm{ or } w &= \frac{4}{3} \end{align*}[/math]

Clearly when w = 0, the volume will be 0, so the maximum volume has to be when [math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} w = \frac{4}{3} \end{align*}[/math]. To check that it's a maximum, we can check the value of the derivative on either side of the point (say at w = 1 and w = 2). So

[math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{dV}{dw} | _{w = 1} &= 6 \\ \\ \frac{dV}{dw} | _{w = 2} &= -24 \end{align*}[/math]

Since the gradients go from positive to 0 to negative, the criticial point is a maximum.

[math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} V &= 12 \left( \frac{4}{3} \right) ^2 - 6 \left( \frac{4}{3} \right) ^3 \\ &= 12 \left( \frac{16}{9} \right) - 6 \left( \frac{64}{27} \right) \\ &= \frac{64}{3} - \frac{128}{9} \\ &= \frac{64}{9} \end{align*}[/math]

Therefore the maximum volume is [math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{64}{9} \,\textrm{ft}\,^3 \end{align*}[/math], when the box has dimensions [math]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \frac{8}{3} \,\textrm{ft} \, \times \frac{4}{3} \,\textrm{ft} \, \times 2\,\textrm{ft} \end{align*}[/math].
 
Last edited:
Sorry Mark, it appears you've forgotten that the OP stated the length is twice as long as the width :)
 
Prove It said:
Sorry Mark, it appears you've forgotten that the OP stated the length is twice as long as the width :)

Yes, thanks to your post, I realized I did not read the problem carefully enough, and I have edited my post to reflect the second constraint. I would not have used Lagrange multipliers if I had done so. :D
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top