I have not yet had the privilege of studying multivariable calculus, but I have made an educated gue

vilitatelp014 2022-05-07 Answered
I have not yet had the privilege of studying multivariable calculus, but I have made an educated guess about how to find the minimum or maximum of a function with two variables, for example, x and y.

Since, in three dimensions, a minimum or maximum would be represented by a tangent plane with no slope in any direction, could I treat y as a constant and differentiate z with respect to x, then treat x as a constant and differentiate with respect to y, and find the places where both of these two are equal to zero?

Sorry if this is just a stupid assumption... it may be one of those things that just seems correct but is actually wrong.
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

aushilfem8sif
Answered 2022-05-08 Author has 7 answers
In fact you got quite a good "guess". When it comes to finding maxima and minima of a function f : R 2 R , you begin by finding the critical points which, as you said, are obtained by solving the system:
{ f x ( x 0 , y 0 ) = 0 f y ( x 0 , y 0 ) = 0
The solution(s), ( x 0 , y 0 ), is either going to be maxima, minima or saddlepoint. You determine which one it is by studying the Hessian matrix evaluated at that point.

I'm sure you will get to it when you start doing multivariable calculus. Great guess, however!
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Relevant Questions

asked 2022-04-06
I need help with the following optimization problem

max α ln ( x ( 1 y 2 ) ) + ( 1 α ) ln ( z )
where the maximization is with respect to x , y , z, subject to
α x + ( 1 α ) z = C 1 α y x ( x + γ ) α x = C 2
where 0 α 1, γ > 0, and x , z 0, and | y | 1.

Generally, one can substitute the constraints in the objective function and maximize with respect to one parameter. The problem is that in this way things become algebraically complicated, and I believe that there is a simple solution.
asked 2022-05-03
Maximize the value of the function
z = a b + c a + b + c ,
where a , b , c are natural numbers and are all lesser than 2010 and not necessarily distinct from each other. Please provide a proof, and if possible a general technique. Thank you.
asked 2022-05-09
Show that f ( x 1 , . . . x n ) = max { f ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) : ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) Ω } if and only if f ( x 1 , . . . x n ) = min { f ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) : ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) Ω }
I am not exactly sure how to approach this problem -- it is very general, so I can't assume anything about the shape of f. It seems obvious that flipping the max problem with a negative turns it into a min problem. Thoughts?
asked 2022-04-06
Given matrix-valued function A : R d R n × n and (tall) matrix B R n × m , where n > m, let matrix-valued function C : R d R m × m be defined by
C ( x ) := B T A ( x ) B
I would like to maximize the determinant of C ( x ) without directly considering C ( x ). If I maximize the determinant of A ( x ), does that maximize the determinant of C ( x ) as well?

If it were m = n, then we would have:
det ( C ) = det ( B ) 2 det ( A )
Hence, maximising det ( A ) would maximize as a consequence det ( C ). Does it hold something similar in the case with n > m? Or is it possible to define some lower bound for det ( C )? And if so, how to prove it?

If in the previous general case it doesn't hold, maybe it could help that, in my specific case C and A are two positive definite matrices and B is a sparse matrix of zeros and ones. A is also block diagonal. The only way I came up with is using Cauchy-Binet for the determinant of the product of rectangular matrices but I remained stuck with a summation involving the principal minors of the Cholesky factorization of A times minors in B.
asked 2022-05-07
Statement:

A manufacturer has been selling 1000 television sets a week at $ 480 each. A market survey indicates that for each $ 11 rebate offered to a buyer, the number of sets sold will increase by 110 per week.

Questions :

a) Find the function representing the revenue R(x), where x is the number of $ 11 rebates offered.

For this, I got ( 110 x + 1000 ) ( 480 11 x ). Which is marked correct

b) How large rebate should the company offer to a buyer, in order to maximize its revenue?

For this I got 17.27. Which was incorrect. I then tried 840999, the sum total revenue at optimized levels

c) If it costs the manufacturer $ 160 for each television set sold and there is a fixed cost of $ 80000, how should the manufacturer set the size of the rebate to maximize its profit?

For this, I received an answer of 10, which was incorrect.
asked 2022-05-09
A huge conical tank to be made from a circular piece of sheet metal of radius 10m by cutting out a sector with vertex angle theta and welding the straight edges of the straight edges of the remaining piece together. Find theta so that the resulting cone has the largest possible volume.

Specifically, the question is asked in the context of wanting derivatives, multiple max/min equations, and hopefully more calc rather than trig or geo.

I have gotten as far as using 10m as the hypotenuse for a triangle formed by the height of the cone, radius of the base of the cone, and slant. I'm not sure where to go from there, because I can't determine how to find height and/or radius, without which I'm not sure I can continue.
asked 2022-05-08
Let X { 0 , 1 } d be a Boolean vector and Y , Z { 0 , 1 } are Boolean variables. Assume that there is a joint distribution D over Y , Z and we'd like to find a joint distribution D over X , Y , Z such that:

1. The marginal of D on Y, Z equals D .
2. X are independent of Z under D , i.e., I ( X ; Z ) = 0.
3. I ( X ; Y ) is maximized,

where I ( ; ) denotes the mutual information. For now I don't even know what is a nontrivial upper bound of I ( X ; Y ) given that I ( X ; Z ) = 0? Furthermore, is it possible we can know the optimal distribution D that achieves the upper bound?

My conjecture is that the upper bound of I ( X ; Y ) should have something to do with the correlation (coupling?) between Y and Z, so ideally it should contain something related to that.