Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Consider the following constrained maximization problem: \\[ \begin{array}{ll} \text { maximize } & y=x_{1}+5 \ln x_{2} \\ \text { subject to } & k-x_{1}-x_{2}=0 \end{array} \\] where \(k\) is a constant that can be assigned any specific value. a. Show that if \(k=10\), this problem can be solved as one involving only equality constraints. b. Show that solving this problem for \(k=4\) requires that \(x_{1}=-1\) c. If the \(x^{\prime}\) s in this problem must be non-negative, what is the optimal solution when \(k=4 ?\) (This problem may be solved either intuitively or using the methods outlined in the chapter.) d. What is the solution for this problem when \(k=20 ?\) What do you conclude by comparing this solution with the solution for part (a)? Note: This problem involves what is called a quasi-linear function. Such functions provide important examples of some types of behavior in consumer theory-as we shall see.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Based on the provided step-by-step solution, provide a short answer discussing the results for the different values of k: When k = 10, the optimal solution is x1 = 5 and x2 = 5. When k = 4, the optimal solution cannot be found as there's no feasible solution, since x1 must be equal to -1, which is not possible under non-negativity constraint. When k = 20, the optimal solution is x1 = 15 and x2 = 5. From these results, it is observed that increasing the value of k causes an increase in the optimal value of x1 while leaving the optimal value of x2 unchanged, which indicates that the constraint is relatively more binding on x2, and x1 responds to the changes in k.

Step by step solution

01

Write down the Lagrangian function

To begin with, let's write down the Lagrangian function: \\[ L(x_{1}, x_{2}, \lambda) = x_{1} + 5 \ln{x_{2}} + \lambda (k - x_{1} - x_{2}) \\] The Lagrangian function L is the objective function plus the constraint multiplied by a Lagrange multiplier λ.
02

Find the first order conditions (FOC)

Now, we will differentiate the Lagrangian function with respect to x1 and x2 to obtain the FOC equations: \\[ \frac{\partial L(x_{1}, x_{2}, \lambda)}{\partial x_{1}} = 1 - \lambda \\] \\[ \frac{\partial L(x_{1}, x_{2}, \lambda)}{\partial x_{2}} = \frac{5}{x_{2}} - \lambda \\]
03

Solve the FOC equations and the constraint

We'll use the constraint equation k - x1 - x2 = 0 to eliminate x2 and substitute it into the second FOC equation: \\[ x_{2} = k - x_{1} \\] Now, substitute this into the second FOC equation: \\[ \frac{5}{k - x_{1}} - \lambda = 0 \\] At this point, we see that the two FOC equations are λ = 1 and λ = 5/(k-x1). We can equate these two expressions for λ and solve for x1: \\[ 1 = \frac{5}{k - x_{1}} \\] \\[ x_{1} = k - 5 \\] Now, we can plug this back into the constraint equation to find the optimal value for x2: \\[ k - 5 - x_{2} = 0 \\] \\[ x_{2} = k - 5 \\] So, the optimal solution is x1 = k - 5 and x2 = 5.
04

Find the optimal values of x1 and x2 for different values of k and discuss the results

Now, let's find the optimal values of x1 and x2 for k = 10, 4, and 20: a. For k = 10, x1 = 5 and x2 = 5. This problem can be solved as one involving only equality constraints. b. For k = 4, x1 = -1 and x2 = 5. To satisfy the constraint k = 4, x1 must be equal to -1. c. When x's are non-negative, the optimal solution for k = 4 can't be found because there is no feasible solution. One possible remedy would be to impose an additional constraint specifying non-negativity. d. For k = 20, x1 = 15 and x2 = 5. By comparing this solution with the solution when k = 10, we can observe that increasing the value of k causes an increase in the optimal value of x1 while leaving the optimal value of x2 unchanged. This tells us that the constraint is relatively more binding on x2, and x1 responds to the changes in k.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Lagrangian Function
At the heart of many economic optimization problems lies the Lagrangian function, a fundamental tool in constrained optimization. It allows us to transform a constrained problem into an unconstrained one by introducing a new variable, the Lagrange multiplier. To construct the Lagrangian function, we combine our objective function—in this case, maximizing output, given by \( y=x_{1}+5 \ln x_{2} \)—with the constraint \( k-x_{1}-x_{2}=0 \), multiplied by the Lagrange multiplier, \( \lambda \).

The resulting Lagrangian function for our exercise is:
\[ L(x_{1}, x_{2}, \lambda) = x_{1} + 5 \ln{x_{2}} + \lambda (k - x_{1} - x_{2}) \]
This function is then used to find the values of \( x_1 \), \( x_2 \), and \( \lambda \) that maximize the original function, while respecting the given constraint.
First Order Conditions (FOC)
The First Order Conditions, or FOCs, are critical to finding the optimum values in a constrained optimization problem. These conditions require setting the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian function with respect to each variable equal to zero.

For our problem, we calculate the derivatives with respect to \( x_1 \) and \( x_2 \):
\[ \frac{\partial L(x_{1}, x_{2}, \lambda)}{\partial x_{1}} = 1 - \lambda \]
\[ \frac{\partial L(x_{1}, x_{2}, \lambda)}{\partial x_{2}} = \frac{5}{x_{2}} - \lambda \]
Setting these derivatives equal to zero allows us to solve for the optimal values that satisfy both the objective function and the constraints. Solving the FOC equations alongside the constraint gives us the solution space for our optimization problem.
Quasi-linear Function
A quasi-linear function plays an important role in economics, especially in consumer theory. These functions typically have one linear term and one non-linear term. In our exercise, the objective function \( y=x_{1}+5 \ln x_{2} \) is quasi-linear because it has a linear term in \( x_1 \) and a non-linear logarithmic term in \( x_2 \).

Quasi-linear functions illustrate how consumers might make trade-offs between goods when one good can be consumed in large quantities without much effect on utility (the linear term), while increases in the other good lead to diminishing marginal returns to utility (the logarithmic term). They are particularly useful for analyzing consumer behavior under different types of market conditions and income levels.
Consumer Theory
Consumer theory examines how individuals decide to spend their income on the consumption of goods and services. It involves concepts like utilities, preferences, budget constraints, and consumption bundles.

In our exercise, the constrained maximization problem can be viewed through the lens of consumer theory, where \( x_1 \) and \( x_2 \) represent two different goods, and \( k \) is akin to the consumer's income or wealth. Consumers must decide the optimal bundle of \( x_1 \) and \( x_2 \) that provides the maximum utility, symbolized by \( y \), within their budget constraint \( k \). When determining solutions for different values of \( k \), we effectively analyze how changes in income affect consumption choices - a critical aspect of consumer theory.
Lagrange Multiplier
The Lagrange multiplier, \( \lambda \), is more than just an additional variable in the Lagrangian function; it holds significant economic interpretation. It represents the change in the maximum value of the objective function for a one-unit increase in the constraint bound.

In our example, observing how the multiplier changes as we solve for different values of \( k \) can reveal how sensitive our optimal solution is to the constraint. When \( k \) changes, the value of the multiplier could provide insight into how restrictive the budget constraint is on the consumer's utility maximization problem. The Lagrange multiplier plays a critical role not only in solving the constrained optimization but also in understanding the underlying economic principles of the problem.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The height of a ball that is thrown straight up with a certain force is a function of the time ( \(t\) ) from which it is released given by \(f(t)=-0.5 g t^{2}+40 t\) (where \(g\) is a constant determined by gravity). a. How does the value of \(t\) at which the height of the ball is at a maximum depend on the parameter \(g\) ? b. Use your answer to part (a) to describe how maximum height changes as the parameter \(g\) changes. c. Use the envelope theorem to answer part (b) directly. d. On the Earth \(g=32\), but this value varies somewhat around the globe. If two locations had gravitational constants that differed by \(0.1,\) what would be the difference in the maximum height of a ball tossed in the two places?

Here are a few useful relationships related to the covariance of two random variables, \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\) a show that \(\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=E\left(x_{1} x_{2}\right)-E\left(x_{1}\right) E\left(x_{2}\right) .\) An important implication of this is that if \(\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=0, E\left(x_{1} x_{2}\right)\) \(=E\left(x_{1}\right) E\left(x_{2}\right) .\) That is, the expected value of a product of two random variables is the product of these variables' expected values. b. Show that \(\operatorname{Var}\left(a x_{1}+b x_{2}\right)=a^{2} \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right)+b^{2} \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)+2 a b \operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)\) c. In Problem \(2.15 \mathrm{d}\) we looked at the variance of \(X=k x_{1}+(1-k) x_{2} \quad 0 \leq k \leq 1 .\) Is the conclusion that this variance is minimized for \(k=0.5\) changed by considering cases where \(\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \neq 0 ?\) d. The correlation coefficient between two random variables is defined as \\[ \operatorname{Corr}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=\frac{\operatorname{Cov}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}\left(x_{1}\right) \operatorname{Var}\left(x_{2}\right)}} \\] Explain why \(-1 \leq \operatorname{Corr}\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right) \leq 1\) and provide some intuition for this result. e. Suppose that the random variable \(y\) is related to the random variable \(x\) by the linear equation \(y=\alpha+\beta x\). Show that \\[ \beta=\frac{\operatorname{Cov}(y, x)}{\operatorname{Var}(x)} \\] Here \(\beta\) is sometimes called the (theoretical) regression coefficient of \(y\) on \(x\). With actual data, the sample analog of this expression is the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression coefficient.

Because we use the envelope theorem in constrained optimization problems often in the text, proving this theorem in a simple case may help develop some intuition. Thus, suppose we wish to maximize a function of two variables and that the value of this function also depends on a parameter, \(a: f\left(x_{1}, x_{2}, a\right) .\) This maximization problem is subject to a constraint that can be written as: \(g\left(x_{1}, x_{2}, a\right)=0\) a. Write out the Lagrangian expression and the first-order conditions for this problem. b. Sum the two first-order conditions involving the \(x^{\prime}\) s. c. Now differentiate the above sum with respect to \(a\) - this shows how the \(x\) 's must change as \(a\) changes while requiring that the first-order conditions continue to hold. A. As we showed in the chapter, both the objective function and the constraint in this problem can be stated as functions of \(a: f\left(x_{1}(a), x_{2}(a), a\right), g\left(x_{1}(a), x_{2}(a), a\right)=0 .\) Differentiate the first of these with respect to \(a\). This shows how the value of the objective changes as \(a\) changes while keeping the \(x^{\prime}\) s at their optimal values. You should have terms that involve the \(x^{\prime}\) s and a single term in \(\partial f / \partial a\) e. Now differentiate the constraint as formulated in part (d) with respect to \(a\). You should have terms in the \(x\) 's and a single term in \(\partial g / \partial a\) f. Multiply the results from part (e) by \(\lambda\) (the Lagrange multiplier), and use this together with the first-order conditions from part (c) to substitute into the derivative from part (d). You should be able to show that \\[ \frac{d f\left(x_{1}(a), x_{2}(a), a\right)}{d a}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial a}+\lambda \frac{\partial g}{\partial a} \\] which is just the partial derivative of the Lagrangian expression when all the \(x^{\prime}\) 's are at their optimal values. This proves the envelope theorem. Explain intuitively how the various parts of this proof impose the condition that the \(x\) 's are constantly being adjusted to be at their optimal values. g. Return to Example 2.8 and explain how the envelope theorem can be applied to changes in the fence perimeter \(P\) -that is, how do changes in \(P\) affect the size of the area that can be fenced? Show that in this case the envelope theorem illustrates how the Lagrange multiplier puts a value on the constraint.

Another function we will encounter often in this book is the power function: \\[ y=x^{\delta} \\] the form \(y=x^{8} / 8\) to ensure that the derivatives have the proper sign). a. Show that this function is concave (and therefore also, by the result of Problem \(2.9,\) quasi-concave). Notice that the \(\delta=1\) is a special case and that the function is "strictly" concave only for \(\delta<1\) b. Show that the multivariate form of the power function \\[ y=f\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=\left(x_{1}\right)^{8}+\left(x_{2}\right)^{8} \\] is also concave (and quasi-concave). Explain why, in this case, the fact that \(f_{12}=f_{21}=0\) makes the determination of concavity especially simple. c. One way to incorporate "scale" effects into the function described in part (b) is to use the monotonic transformation \\[ g\left(x_{1}, x_{2}\right)=y^{y}=\left[\left(x_{1}\right)^{8}+\left(x_{2}\right)^{8}\right]^{y} \\] where \(\gamma\) is a positive constant. Does this transformation preserve the concavity of the function? Is \(g\) quasi-concave?

Suppose a firm's total revenues depend on the amount produced ( \(q\) ) according to the function \\[ R=70 q-q^{2} \\] Total costs also depend on \(q\) \\[ C=q^{2}+30 q+100 \\] a. What level of output should the firm produce to maximize profits \((R-C) ?\) What will profits be? b. Show that the second-order conditions for a maximum are satisfied at the output level found in part (a). c. Does the solution calculated here obey the "marginal revenue equals marginal cost" rule? Explain.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free