Author |
Topic: Lagrange Multiplier Conditions (Read 1037 times) |
|
william wu
wu::riddles Administrator
Gender: 
Posts: 1291
|
 |
Lagrange Multiplier Conditions
« on: Sep 7th, 2003, 11:09pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Exactly what conditions must a maximizing/minimzing function and its constraints satisfy in order for lagrange multipliers to be applicable? I have no reference on this subject.
|
|
 IP Logged |
[ wu ] : http://wuriddles.com / http://forums.wuriddles.com
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: Lagrange Multiplier Conditions
« Reply #1 on: Sep 8th, 2003, 9:02pm » |
Quote Modify
|
"Calculus of Variations" by Robert Weinstock (Dover, 1974) has this to say:
"A necessary condition for a minimum (or maximum) of F(x, y, ..., z) with respect to variables x, y, ..., z that satisfy
( 7 ) Gi(x, y, ..., z) = Ci (i = 1, 2, ..., N),
Where the Ci are given constants, is
( 8 ) [partial]F*/[partial]x = [partial]F*/[partial]y = ... = [partial]F*/[partial]z = 0,
where F* = F + [sum] [lambda]iGi. The constants [lambda]1, [lambda]2, ..., [lambda]N - introduced as undetermined Lagrange multipliers - are evaluated, together with the minimizing (or maximizing) values of x, y, ..., z, by means of the set of equations ( 7 ) and ( 8 )."
Unfortunately, he is reticent about the assumptions that this clearly requires. At the start of the chapter he defines "piecewise differentiable", then tosses out the phrase "We eliminate consideration of any functions whose derivative undergoes infinitely many changes of sign in a finite interval."
I have to assume that piecewise differentiability along with only a finite number of sign changes for the derivative in any finite interval (presumably for each variable, holding the others constant) are sufficient conditions for lagrange multipliers to be necessary to the existance of an extrema.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 8th, 2003, 9:02pm by Icarus » |
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: Lagrange Multiplier Conditions
« Reply #2 on: Sep 9th, 2003, 7:40pm » |
Quote Modify
|
"Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by George Arfken (Acedemic Press, 1970) discusses only the case of a single restraint for a 3 dimensional situation. He adds this consideration: "The method will fail if all of the coefficients of [lambda] vanish at the extremum. ... It is then impossible to solve for [lambda]."
I believe the appropriate expansion of this to more variables and restraints is that for any i, not all of the [partial]Gi/[partial]xj are zero, where Gi is the ith constraint function and xj is the jth coordinate variable.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print