Mathematics Asked by Naah on December 18, 2021
Let $$f(x_1, …, x_n) = x_1 + frac{x_2}{x_1} + frac{x_3}{x_2} + …+frac{x_n}{x_{n-1}} + frac{1}{x_n}$$
where $x_1, …, x_n>0$.
I thought that maybe I should cast what above as optimization problem with equality constraint, but I don’t know how to do that. Moreover the constraint gives unbounded open set, so even existence of extrema is tricky.
Since we don’t have boundary constraints, we don’t have to introduce additional Lagranges multipliers. Since $f$ is defined on an unbounded open set, necessary conditions that $f$ has an extremum at a point $x=(x_1,dots, x_n)$ is the equality of partial derivatives of $f$ at $x$ to zero, see, for instance, [Fich, 196]. It means
$frac{partial f}{partial x_1}=1-frac {x_2}{x_1^2}=0$, so $x_2=x_1^2$.
$frac{partial f}{partial x_2}=frac 1{x_1}-frac {x_3}{x_2^2}=0,$ so $x_3=frac{x_2^2}{x_1}=x_1^3$.
$dots$
$frac{partial f}{partial x_i}=frac 1{x_{i-1}}-frac {x_{i+1}}{x_i^2}=0,$ so $x_{i+1}=frac{ x_i^2}{x_{i-1}}=frac{ x_1^{2i}}{x_1^{i-1}}=x_1^{i+1}$.
$dots$
$frac{partial f}{partial x_n}=frac 1{x_{n-1}}-frac {1}{x_n^2}=0,$ so $1=frac{x_n^2}{x_{n-1}}=frac{x_1^{2n}}{x_1^{n-1}}=x_1^{n+1}$.
Thus $x_1=1$, and so $x_i=1$ for each $i$.
We can further study whether $f$ has at $x$ a local minimum, a local maximum, or a saddle point by the second-derivative test, but there is an easy way.
Namely, by an inequality between an arithmetic and geometric means, for each $t=(t_1,dots,t_n)$ we have
$$f(t)ge (n+1)sqrt[n+1]{t_1cdot frac{t_2}{t_1}cdotsfrac{t_n}{t_{n-1}}cdotfrac1{t_n}}=n+1,$$
and the equality is attained iff
$$t_1=frac{t_2}{t_1}=dots=frac{t_n}{t_{n-1}}=frac1{t_n},$$
that is iff $$log t_1-log 1=log t_2-log t_1=dots=log t_n-log t_{n-1}=log 1-log t_n,$$
That is when $0=log 1,log t_1,dots, log_n,log 1=0$ are consecutive members of an arithmetic progression, that is when all $log t_i$ are equal to zero, that is $t=x$.
Thus, the function $f$ attains a unique extremum at the point $x=(1,dots,1)$, which is a global minimum.
References
[Fich] Grigorii Fichtenholz, Differential and Integral Calculus, vol. I, 5-th edition, M.: Nauka, 1962 (in Russian).
Answered by Alex Ravsky on December 18, 2021
You can try that , but i'm not sure if it's true or not.
$nabla f(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)=0 $ $iff left(1-dfrac{x_2}{x_1^2},dfrac{1}{x_1}-dfrac{x_3}{x^2_2},cdots, dfrac{1}{x_{n-2}}-dfrac{x_n}{x_{n-1}^2}, dfrac{1}{x_{n-1}}-dfrac{1}{x_{n}^2}right) $ $iff x_1^2=x2,x_2^2=x_1x_3, x_3^2=x_2x_4, cdots, x_{n-1}^2=x_{n-2},x_n$, $ x_n^2=x_{n-1} $
$iff x=(x_1,x_1^2,cdots, x_1^n)$
Answered by H_K on December 18, 2021
Clearly $f(x_1, cdots, x_n) > x_1$ so there is no upper bound.
Assume $x_0 = x_{n+1} = 1$ and make a change of variable $y_1 = dfrac{x_1}{x_0}$, $y_2 = dfrac{x_2}{x_1}$, $cdots, $ $y_{n+1} = dfrac{x_{n+1}}{x_n}$.
Then you have the objective function $F(y_1, cdots, y_{n+1}) = y_1 + cdots + y_{n+1}$ under the constraint $y_1y_2cdots y_{n+1} = 1$. This is a standard Lagrange multiplier problem (or AM-GM inequality problem).
Answered by Hw Chu on December 18, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP