Multivariable Help:
Once again I'm stumbling on Lagrange Multipliers. I need to find the maximum and minimum distance from the origin of a point on the ellipsoid 4x^2 + (y-2)^2 + (z-1)^2 = 4.
I've determined that the partials are as follows:
df/dx = 2x
df/dy = 2y
df/dz = 2z
dg/dx = 8x
dg/dy = 2(y-2)
dg/dz = 2(z-1)
From this, I get the Lagrange equations to be:
2x = L(8x)
2y = L(2y-4)
2z = L(2z-2)
From these equations, I get x = 0, L = 1/4, y = -2/3 and z = -1/3. Where do I go from here?

- anonymous

- schrodinger

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

I'm a little rusty, but it looks like you found the closest point to the origin that is on the ellipsoid. So follow Pythagorus\[d=\sqrt{x ^{2}+y ^{2}+z ^{2}}\]

- anonymous

Oh my... *Pythagoras

- anonymous

ok for that I get sqrt(5)/3. Now how do I get the farthest point?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- TuringTest

you didn't get the critical points yet it seems. actually I think they will be boundaries... let's see...

- anonymous

ok now I got myself totally confused...

- TuringTest

yeah you did confuse things a tad...
constraint:\[f(x)=4x^2+(y-2)^2+(z-1)^2=4\]to optimize we'll use distance squared\[g(x)=x^2+y^2+z^2\]we then apply Lagrange's trick to get\[\\\begin{align}&\nabla f(x)&=\lambda\nabla g(x)\\(1)&8x&=2\lambda x\\(2)&2y-4&=2\lambda y\\(3)&2z-4&=2\lambda z\\(4)&4x^2+(y-2)^2+(z-1)&=4\end{align}\]

- anonymous

wait...I thought the Lambda was put on the side of the constraint derivatives...

- TuringTest

yep, my bad, let me fix that :P

- TuringTest

ok the heck with using the latex, takes too long
you had it right:
2x = L(8x)
2y = L(2y-4)
2z = L(2z-2)
4x^2+(y-2)^2+(z-1)^2=4
it's a matter of solving this system: 4 equations, 4 unknowns

- anonymous

and I solved that and got the 4 values shown above...

- anonymous

so what do those 4 values mean right now?

- TuringTest

they are a set of critical points, but I'm not sure they are the only ones...

- TuringTest

well, just one critical point I mean

- TuringTest

lambda means nothing as I mentioned before

- anonymous

But if there is only one critical point, how can there be a max distance AND a min distance?

- anonymous

I have this tiny little voice in my head that keeps saying, "go through the constraint". I know it sounds weird, but I remember something about how there is always another one through the constraint.

- TuringTest

well if you plug x=0 into the restraint you get a circle...

- TuringTest

ohhhhhhhh I think I see the problem
again it is a matter of the ambiguity in the sign...

- TuringTest

how did you solve for y ?

- anonymous

haha... plugged in lambda=1/4

- anonymous

um...I plugged in L = 1/4, got 2y = (y/2) -1

- anonymous

-1/4 would work for the x equation too, huh?

- anonymous

Where on earth did the negative come from?

- anonymous

oh I see what you mean

- anonymous

since x is 0, the sign of Lambda doesn't matter...

- anonymous

maybe/ maybe not... but I think that when you divide out the x, you eliminate solutions.

- anonymous

Not to confuse the discussion, but I think there are two maximums.

- TuringTest

see, you need to plug in that x value into the restraint, using that value of lambda
2x = L(8x) -> L=1/4, x=0
2y = L(2y-4) -> y-2=y/L
2z = L(2z-2) -> z-1=z/L
plug these into
4x^2+(y-2)^2+(z-1)^2=4
now look how we can rewrite the restraint:

- TuringTest

4=(y/L)^2+(z/L)^2

- anonymous

circle of radius 2 ?

- TuringTest

well we need to deal with L first

- TuringTest

L=1/4 so
64=y^2+z^2=8^2

- TuringTest

now we need a way to represent y in terms of z or vice versa

- TuringTest

or not... but that's the plan

- anonymous

ok I'm working this out...

- TuringTest

me too :P

- TuringTest

yeah that works\[\lambda={y\over y-1}={z\over z-1}\]

- anonymous

I think that might be y-2 instead of y-1

- TuringTest

oh yes, sorry!

- TuringTest

also it should be
y^2+z^2=1/4
after multiplying by L^2
this is why we always need extra eyes on these things!

- anonymous

I was just looking at that... thank goodness you saw it too.

- anonymous

wait, now are we supposed to solve for y and z?

- anonymous

yeah, this is crazy. I've filled pages with mostly garbage.

- anonymous

oh y = 2z haha

- TuringTest

that's what i get, so plugging that into the restraint gives you...?

- anonymous

z = sqrt(20)/20 y = sqrt(20)/10

- anonymous

those are both positive negative by the way

- anonymous

is that right?

- TuringTest

yeah that's what I get, though I am disturbed that wolfram disagrees

- anonymous

oh boy...

- TuringTest

oh I see, we should have just plugged this directly into the original restraint with x=0
4=(y-2)^2+(z-1)^2

- anonymous

oh oh ok that makes more sense

- TuringTest

went a little overboard trying to simplify I guess

- anonymous

ok gotta go. Thanks so much!

- TuringTest

with the +/- you have your max and min of course
welcome!

- anonymous

Thanks for brushing out some cobwebs... more to go.

- TuringTest

ikr? seems like history...

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.