Why does the Lagrange multiplier $lambda$ change when the equality constraint is scaled?












2












$begingroup$


Consider the problem



$$begin{array}{ll} text{maximize} & x^2+y^2 \ text{subject to} & dfrac{x^2}{25} + dfrac{y^2}{9} = 1end{array}$$



Solving this using the Lagrange multiplier method, I get



$$x = pm5, qquad y = 0, qquad lambda = 25$$



However, if I rewrite the constraint as $9x^2+25y^2=225$, I get a different value of $lambda$, namely, $lambda = frac 19$. I am unclear about why this should happen: the constraint is exactly the same, only rewritten after cross multiplication — why should that affect the value of the multiplier? What am I missing?






optimization lagrange-multiplier constraints qcqp







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That shouldn't be the case - maybe check for an arithmetic error?
    $endgroup$
    – Vasting
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Double checked, doesn't seem to be an error.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why wouldn't the multiplier's value change? There's no reason that it shouldn't.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Because the constrained is the same. Relaxing the constraint by a small unit should still have the same effect on the value function, shouldn't it?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago
















2












$begingroup$


Consider the problem



$$begin{array}{ll} text{maximize} & x^2+y^2 \ text{subject to} & dfrac{x^2}{25} + dfrac{y^2}{9} = 1end{array}$$



Solving this using the Lagrange multiplier method, I get



$$x = pm5, qquad y = 0, qquad lambda = 25$$



However, if I rewrite the constraint as $9x^2+25y^2=225$, I get a different value of $lambda$, namely, $lambda = frac 19$. I am unclear about why this should happen: the constraint is exactly the same, only rewritten after cross multiplication — why should that affect the value of the multiplier? What am I missing?






optimization lagrange-multiplier constraints qcqp







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That shouldn't be the case - maybe check for an arithmetic error?
    $endgroup$
    – Vasting
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Double checked, doesn't seem to be an error.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why wouldn't the multiplier's value change? There's no reason that it shouldn't.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Because the constrained is the same. Relaxing the constraint by a small unit should still have the same effect on the value function, shouldn't it?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


Consider the problem



$$begin{array}{ll} text{maximize} & x^2+y^2 \ text{subject to} & dfrac{x^2}{25} + dfrac{y^2}{9} = 1end{array}$$



Solving this using the Lagrange multiplier method, I get



$$x = pm5, qquad y = 0, qquad lambda = 25$$



However, if I rewrite the constraint as $9x^2+25y^2=225$, I get a different value of $lambda$, namely, $lambda = frac 19$. I am unclear about why this should happen: the constraint is exactly the same, only rewritten after cross multiplication — why should that affect the value of the multiplier? What am I missing?






optimization lagrange-multiplier constraints qcqp







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Consider the problem



$$begin{array}{ll} text{maximize} & x^2+y^2 \ text{subject to} & dfrac{x^2}{25} + dfrac{y^2}{9} = 1end{array}$$



Solving this using the Lagrange multiplier method, I get



$$x = pm5, qquad y = 0, qquad lambda = 25$$



However, if I rewrite the constraint as $9x^2+25y^2=225$, I get a different value of $lambda$, namely, $lambda = frac 19$. I am unclear about why this should happen: the constraint is exactly the same, only rewritten after cross multiplication — why should that affect the value of the multiplier? What am I missing?






optimization lagrange-multiplier constraints qcqp




optimization lagrange-multiplier constraints qcqp






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Rodrigo de Azevedo

13.2k41962




13.2k41962










asked Apr 7 at 6:29









PGuptaPGupta

1746




1746












  • $begingroup$
    That shouldn't be the case - maybe check for an arithmetic error?
    $endgroup$
    – Vasting
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Double checked, doesn't seem to be an error.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why wouldn't the multiplier's value change? There's no reason that it shouldn't.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Because the constrained is the same. Relaxing the constraint by a small unit should still have the same effect on the value function, shouldn't it?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago


















  • $begingroup$
    That shouldn't be the case - maybe check for an arithmetic error?
    $endgroup$
    – Vasting
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Double checked, doesn't seem to be an error.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Why wouldn't the multiplier's value change? There's no reason that it shouldn't.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Because the constrained is the same. Relaxing the constraint by a small unit should still have the same effect on the value function, shouldn't it?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago
















$begingroup$
That shouldn't be the case - maybe check for an arithmetic error?
$endgroup$
– Vasting
2 days ago




$begingroup$
That shouldn't be the case - maybe check for an arithmetic error?
$endgroup$
– Vasting
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Double checked, doesn't seem to be an error.
$endgroup$
– PGupta
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Double checked, doesn't seem to be an error.
$endgroup$
– PGupta
2 days ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Why wouldn't the multiplier's value change? There's no reason that it shouldn't.
$endgroup$
– littleO
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Why wouldn't the multiplier's value change? There's no reason that it shouldn't.
$endgroup$
– littleO
2 days ago












$begingroup$
Because the constrained is the same. Relaxing the constraint by a small unit should still have the same effect on the value function, shouldn't it?
$endgroup$
– PGupta
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Because the constrained is the same. Relaxing the constraint by a small unit should still have the same effect on the value function, shouldn't it?
$endgroup$
– PGupta
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Let $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambda(9x^2+25y^2-225).$



Thus, from $$frac{partial f}{partial x}=2x+18lambda x=0$$ and
$$frac{partial f}{partial y}=2y+50lambda y=0$$ we obtain two possibilities: $lambda=-frac{1}{9}$ or $lambda=-frac{1}{25}.$



The second gives a minimal value, wile the first gives a maximal value:
$$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=25-frac{16}{9}y^2leq25,$$ where the equality occurs for $y=0.$



If we consider $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambdaleft(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right)$ so we'll get $lambda=-25$



and we'll get the same answer of course.



It happens because $-frac{1}{9}cdot225=-25$ and
$$x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=x^2+y^2-25left(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right).$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @PGupta I added something. See now.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Rozenberg
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    This makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago



















5












$begingroup$

If $x^star$ minimizes $f(x)$ subject to the constraint that $g(x)=0$, then under mild assumptions there exists a Lagrange multiplier $lambda$ that satisfies
$$
tag{1} nabla f(x^star) = lambda nabla g(x^star).
$$
If $g$ is replaced with $c g$, then $x^star$ is still a minimizer, but of course $lambda$ no longer satisfies (1). We must correspondingly multiply $lambda$ by $1/c$ in order for (1) to remain true.



Different but equivalent constraints have different Lagrange multipliers. The way you write the constraint matters.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago



















0












$begingroup$

Writing the equation $$frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}=1$$ in the form
$$y^2=9-frac{9}{25}x^2$$ you will have the objective function
$$f(x)=frac{16}{25}x^2+9$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3177834%2fwhy-does-the-lagrange-multiplier-lambda-change-when-the-equality-constraint-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    Let $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambda(9x^2+25y^2-225).$



    Thus, from $$frac{partial f}{partial x}=2x+18lambda x=0$$ and
    $$frac{partial f}{partial y}=2y+50lambda y=0$$ we obtain two possibilities: $lambda=-frac{1}{9}$ or $lambda=-frac{1}{25}.$



    The second gives a minimal value, wile the first gives a maximal value:
    $$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=25-frac{16}{9}y^2leq25,$$ where the equality occurs for $y=0.$



    If we consider $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambdaleft(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right)$ so we'll get $lambda=-25$



    and we'll get the same answer of course.



    It happens because $-frac{1}{9}cdot225=-25$ and
    $$x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=x^2+y^2-25left(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right).$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @PGupta I added something. See now.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Rozenberg
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      This makes sense, thank you.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago
















    2












    $begingroup$

    Let $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambda(9x^2+25y^2-225).$



    Thus, from $$frac{partial f}{partial x}=2x+18lambda x=0$$ and
    $$frac{partial f}{partial y}=2y+50lambda y=0$$ we obtain two possibilities: $lambda=-frac{1}{9}$ or $lambda=-frac{1}{25}.$



    The second gives a minimal value, wile the first gives a maximal value:
    $$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=25-frac{16}{9}y^2leq25,$$ where the equality occurs for $y=0.$



    If we consider $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambdaleft(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right)$ so we'll get $lambda=-25$



    and we'll get the same answer of course.



    It happens because $-frac{1}{9}cdot225=-25$ and
    $$x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=x^2+y^2-25left(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right).$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @PGupta I added something. See now.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Rozenberg
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      This makes sense, thank you.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago














    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    Let $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambda(9x^2+25y^2-225).$



    Thus, from $$frac{partial f}{partial x}=2x+18lambda x=0$$ and
    $$frac{partial f}{partial y}=2y+50lambda y=0$$ we obtain two possibilities: $lambda=-frac{1}{9}$ or $lambda=-frac{1}{25}.$



    The second gives a minimal value, wile the first gives a maximal value:
    $$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=25-frac{16}{9}y^2leq25,$$ where the equality occurs for $y=0.$



    If we consider $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambdaleft(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right)$ so we'll get $lambda=-25$



    and we'll get the same answer of course.



    It happens because $-frac{1}{9}cdot225=-25$ and
    $$x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=x^2+y^2-25left(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right).$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Let $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambda(9x^2+25y^2-225).$



    Thus, from $$frac{partial f}{partial x}=2x+18lambda x=0$$ and
    $$frac{partial f}{partial y}=2y+50lambda y=0$$ we obtain two possibilities: $lambda=-frac{1}{9}$ or $lambda=-frac{1}{25}.$



    The second gives a minimal value, wile the first gives a maximal value:
    $$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=25-frac{16}{9}y^2leq25,$$ where the equality occurs for $y=0.$



    If we consider $f(x,y)=x^2+y^2+lambdaleft(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right)$ so we'll get $lambda=-25$



    and we'll get the same answer of course.



    It happens because $-frac{1}{9}cdot225=-25$ and
    $$x^2+y^2-frac{1}{9}(9x^2+25y^2-225)=x^2+y^2-25left(frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}-1right).$$







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    Michael RozenbergMichael Rozenberg

    110k1896201




    110k1896201












    • $begingroup$
      Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @PGupta I added something. See now.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Rozenberg
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      This makes sense, thank you.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @PGupta I added something. See now.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Rozenberg
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      This makes sense, thank you.
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago
















    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is what I am doing. My question is, why does the multiplier's value change when I just divide the constraint by 225.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    @PGupta I added something. See now.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Rozenberg
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @PGupta I added something. See now.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Rozenberg
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    This makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    This makes sense, thank you.
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago











    5












    $begingroup$

    If $x^star$ minimizes $f(x)$ subject to the constraint that $g(x)=0$, then under mild assumptions there exists a Lagrange multiplier $lambda$ that satisfies
    $$
    tag{1} nabla f(x^star) = lambda nabla g(x^star).
    $$
    If $g$ is replaced with $c g$, then $x^star$ is still a minimizer, but of course $lambda$ no longer satisfies (1). We must correspondingly multiply $lambda$ by $1/c$ in order for (1) to remain true.



    Different but equivalent constraints have different Lagrange multipliers. The way you write the constraint matters.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
      $endgroup$
      – littleO
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago
















    5












    $begingroup$

    If $x^star$ minimizes $f(x)$ subject to the constraint that $g(x)=0$, then under mild assumptions there exists a Lagrange multiplier $lambda$ that satisfies
    $$
    tag{1} nabla f(x^star) = lambda nabla g(x^star).
    $$
    If $g$ is replaced with $c g$, then $x^star$ is still a minimizer, but of course $lambda$ no longer satisfies (1). We must correspondingly multiply $lambda$ by $1/c$ in order for (1) to remain true.



    Different but equivalent constraints have different Lagrange multipliers. The way you write the constraint matters.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
      $endgroup$
      – littleO
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago














    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    If $x^star$ minimizes $f(x)$ subject to the constraint that $g(x)=0$, then under mild assumptions there exists a Lagrange multiplier $lambda$ that satisfies
    $$
    tag{1} nabla f(x^star) = lambda nabla g(x^star).
    $$
    If $g$ is replaced with $c g$, then $x^star$ is still a minimizer, but of course $lambda$ no longer satisfies (1). We must correspondingly multiply $lambda$ by $1/c$ in order for (1) to remain true.



    Different but equivalent constraints have different Lagrange multipliers. The way you write the constraint matters.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    If $x^star$ minimizes $f(x)$ subject to the constraint that $g(x)=0$, then under mild assumptions there exists a Lagrange multiplier $lambda$ that satisfies
    $$
    tag{1} nabla f(x^star) = lambda nabla g(x^star).
    $$
    If $g$ is replaced with $c g$, then $x^star$ is still a minimizer, but of course $lambda$ no longer satisfies (1). We must correspondingly multiply $lambda$ by $1/c$ in order for (1) to remain true.



    Different but equivalent constraints have different Lagrange multipliers. The way you write the constraint matters.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    littleOlittleO

    30.5k649111




    30.5k649111












    • $begingroup$
      Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
      $endgroup$
      – littleO
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
      $endgroup$
      – littleO
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
      $endgroup$
      – PGupta
      2 days ago
















    $begingroup$
    Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Right, this makes it clear. Could you also shed some light on how to interpret this? The multiplier tells us how the value function changes with respect to a small change in the constraint. The maximised value remains the same no matter how we write the constraint. So, relaxing the constraint should change the maximixed value by the same amount--how is rescaling affecting this?
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @PGupta Perturbing the constraint $g(x) = 0$ by a small amount $delta$ is equivalent to perturbing the constraint $cg(x) =0$ by $cdelta$. The change in the optimal value is the same amount $epsilon$ in either case. But the rate of change is $lambda = epsilon/delta$ in the first case, and $lambda/c = epsilon/(c delta)$ in the second case.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Great, got it. Thanks a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – PGupta
    2 days ago











    0












    $begingroup$

    Writing the equation $$frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}=1$$ in the form
    $$y^2=9-frac{9}{25}x^2$$ you will have the objective function
    $$f(x)=frac{16}{25}x^2+9$$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Writing the equation $$frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}=1$$ in the form
      $$y^2=9-frac{9}{25}x^2$$ you will have the objective function
      $$f(x)=frac{16}{25}x^2+9$$






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Writing the equation $$frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}=1$$ in the form
        $$y^2=9-frac{9}{25}x^2$$ you will have the objective function
        $$f(x)=frac{16}{25}x^2+9$$






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Writing the equation $$frac{x^2}{25}+frac{y^2}{9}=1$$ in the form
        $$y^2=9-frac{9}{25}x^2$$ you will have the objective function
        $$f(x)=frac{16}{25}x^2+9$$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 2 days ago

























        answered 2 days ago









        Dr. Sonnhard GraubnerDr. Sonnhard Graubner

        78.8k42867




        78.8k42867






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3177834%2fwhy-does-the-lagrange-multiplier-lambda-change-when-the-equality-constraint-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            Image
            2 How does Captain America lift Thor's hammer? In Avengers: Age of Ultron , he is not worthy but how he is worthy in this film. plot-explanation marvel-cinematic-universe avengers-age-of-ultron avengers-endgame share | improve this question edited 19 mins ago A J ♦ 42.7k 16 229 246 asked 39 mins ago Andi AR Andi AR 325 1 4 14
            Read more

            迪纳利

            Image
            迪纳利峰 位于迪纳利国家公园和保留区的迪纳利峰（旧名麦金利峰） 最高点 海拔 20,237英尺（6,168米）   NGVD 29 . [1] [2] 相對高度 20,073英尺（6,118米） 列表 各洲最高峰列表 特独立山峰 各国最高点列表 美国最高点  排名第一 [3] 坐标 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley ) 坐标： 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley )   地理 位置   美國阿拉斯加州迪纳利自治市镇 迪纳利国家公园和保留区 山脈 阿拉斯加山脉 攀山 首次登頂 （ 英语 ： First ascent ） 1913年6月7日 哈德逊·史塔克 哈里·卡斯坦斯 沃尔特·哈珀 罗伯特·塔特姆 最簡路線 西坡路线（攀登冰川/雪） 迪纳利 （北阿萨巴斯卡语支、 英语： Denali ， / d ᵻ ˈ n ɑː l i / ，直译“高山”），1917年至2015年官方名称为 麦金利山 （另译作 麦金利峰 ， 英语： Mount McKinley ），位于阿拉斯加州东南部、阿拉斯加山脉中段，海拔6194米，是北美洲最高峰，也是美国的最高峰。它的俄语名称是 Большая Гора ， 罗马化：Bolshaya Gora ，意思是“大山”。 迪纳利山地区拥有变幻莫测的高山风、典型的北极植被以及野生动植物。这里大部分地区终年积雪，山间经常浓雾不断，雾气在皑皑白雪中缭绕弥漫时，几百米之外的景物便不可见。夏季，迪纳利山的青青山坡上鲜花盛开，紫色的杜鹃和精巧的铃状石南花随处可见。迪纳利山还是世界登山爱好者的汇集之地。每年5月到7月有数百人登山，只有一半不到的人能登顶成功。一次登山约花3个星期。 2015年8月31日，美國政府宣佈將山名由“麦金利山”改回原名“迪纳利山”。美國內政部發表聲
            Read more

            南乌拉尔铁路局

            Image
            南乌拉尔铁路局 Южно-Уральская железная дорога 成立 1934年1月4日 国家   蘇聯（1934年—1991年）   俄羅斯（1991年—） 总部 车里雅宾斯克 隶属 俄罗斯铁路股份公司 路局代码 80 铁路里程 4,934.9公里 奖项 网址 http://yuzd.rzd.ru/ 查 论 编 南乌拉尔铁路局 （俄语： Южно-Уральская железная дорога ， 羅馬化： Yuzhno-Uralskaya zheleznaya doroga ，简称 ЮУЖД ）是俄罗斯铁路股份公司属下的铁路管理局之一，总部位于车里雅宾斯克，负责管辖俄罗斯联邦乌拉尔南部地区的铁路系统，范围包括奥伦堡州、车里雅宾斯克州、库尔干州的大部分铁路，以及萨马拉州、斯维尔德洛夫斯克州、巴什科尔托斯坦共和国的少部分铁路，并有部分铁路延伸至或穿过哈萨克斯坦境内。南乌拉尔铁路局的营业里程为4,934.9公里，与伏尔加铁路局、古比雪夫铁路局、斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局、西西伯利亚铁路局相邻，并与南方的哈萨克斯坦铁路连接。 外部链接 （俄文） Южно-Уральская железная дорога — филиал ОАО РЖД （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（一） （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（二） 查 论 编 俄罗斯铁路（集团）股份公司 十月铁路局 · 莫斯科铁路局 · 北高加索铁路局 · 高尔基铁路局 · 古比雪夫铁路局 · 北方铁路局 · 伏尔加铁路局 · 东南铁路局 · 斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局 · 南乌拉尔铁路局 · 西西伯利亚铁路局 · 克拉斯诺亚尔斯克铁路局 · 东西伯利亚铁路局 · 后贝加尔铁路局 · 远东铁路局 · 加里宁格勒铁路局 This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
            Read more