Hi, what am trying to do is maximise the area of a right angle triangle given a constant parameter. I have the sides a, b and root(a^2 + b^2) and the perimiter is 2s.

But I get to a point when trying to do the algebra where s=0, so obviosuly Ive done something wrong but I cant find anything when I look over it, can anyone find what I am doing wrong?

I first try to solve for root(a^2 + b^2).

But I get to a point when trying to do the algebra where s=0, so obviosuly Ive done something wrong but I cant find anything when I look over it, can anyone find what I am doing wrong?

I first try to solve for root(a^2 + b^2).

Scroll to see replies

Original post by grhas98

Hi, what am trying to do is maximise the area of a right angle triangle given a constant parameter. I have the sides a, b and root(a^2 + b^2) and the perimiter is 2s.

But I get to a point when trying to do the algebra where s=0, so obviosuly Ive done something wrong but I cant find anything when I look over it, can anyone find what I am doing wrong?

I first try to solve for root(a^2 + b^2).

But I get to a point when trying to do the algebra where s=0, so obviosuly Ive done something wrong but I cant find anything when I look over it, can anyone find what I am doing wrong?

I first try to solve for root(a^2 + b^2).

Here is my attempt

Original post by mqb2766

The solution must be a=b, so a division by zero (a-b) doesn't help.

But, Id have eliminated lambda when you combine La and Lb and get that solution. Then use that to get the hypotenuse in terms of s.

But, Id have eliminated lambda when you combine La and Lb and get that solution. Then use that to get the hypotenuse in terms of s.

Oh, I see, by eliminate lambda you mean solve for it? And then put it i to one of the equation La or Lb?

Original post by grhas98

Oh, I see, by eliminate lambda you mean solve for it? And then put it i to one of the equation La or Lb?

La and Lb are two equations in three variables. So just eliminate lambda and get a constraint between the two remaining variables (a and b). As the perimeter is an equality constraint, you know that lambda must be non-zero so just eliminate it.

(edited 12 months ago)

Original post by mqb2766

La and Lb are two equations in three variables. So just eliminate lambda and get a constraint between the two remaining variables (a and b). As the perimeter is an equality constraint, you know that lambda must be non-zero so just eliminate it.

But when I try getting lambda on it’s own I end up having to divide by (b-a)/root(b^2+a^2) which would be 0?

Original post by grhas98

But when I try getting lambda on it’s own I end up having to divide by (b-a)/root(b^2+a^2) which would be 0?

Not sure what youve done, but if you rearrange both La and Lb for

lambda =

and equate, I dont get that.

Edit - see #9.

(edited 12 months ago)

Original post by mqb2766

Not sure what youve done, but if you rearrange both La and Lb for

lambda =

and equate, I dont get that.

lambda =

and equate, I dont get that.

Do u get rid of the -lambdas and then just get left with the lambda multiplied with the fraction?

Original post by grhas98

Do u get rid of the -lambdas and then just get left with the lambda multiplied with the fraction?

Im really not sure what youve tried to do. You have two simultaneous equations La and Lb in 3 variables. So you can eliiminate lambda (substiution or ...) and get a relationship for a in terms of b (or vice versa).

Upload what youve tried to do. Note your problem sees to be that you try and divde out the solution, rather than factorizing = 0 and reasoning about each factor. It may be that youre pretty much there otherwise.

Edit - its probably worth noting that you get something similar to your original equation (but not involving lambda). However, you factorise rather than divide to reason about how the variables are related. You could do this with your expression by thinking about how lambda is defined, but its probably more direct to eliminate it and factorise as suggested above.

(edited 12 months ago)

Original post by mqb2766

Im really not sure what youve tried to do. You have two simultaneous equations La and Lb in 3 variables. So you can eliiminate lambda (substiution or ...) and get a relationship for a in terms of b (or vice versa).

Upload what youve tried to do. Note your problem sees to be that you try and divde out the solution, rather than factorizing = 0 and reasoning about each factor. It may be that youre pretty much there otherwise.

Edit - its probably worth noting that you get something similar to your original equation (but not involving lambda). However, you factorise rather than divide to reason about how the variables are related. You could do this with your expression by thinking about how lambda is defined, but its probably more direct to eliminate it and factorise as suggested above.

Upload what youve tried to do. Note your problem sees to be that you try and divde out the solution, rather than factorizing = 0 and reasoning about each factor. It may be that youre pretty much there otherwise.

Edit - its probably worth noting that you get something similar to your original equation (but not involving lambda). However, you factorise rather than divide to reason about how the variables are related. You could do this with your expression by thinking about how lambda is defined, but its probably more direct to eliminate it and factorise as suggested above.

Yea I see that now, thank you. The questions themeselves dont require much thought but the algebra is not something I am all that good at.

I have a similar question about another more algebra heavy question with two constraints. I simply font know where to go from this point:

I’m assuming I should plug it into the plane constraint and get lambda in terms of y, but I end up with such a mess, do you have any tips? Please ignore the second image I accidently uploaded it but I wont let me delete it.

Attachment not found

(edited 12 months ago)

Original post by grhas98

Yea I see that now, thank you. The questions themeselves dont require much thought but the algebra is not something I am all that good at.

I have a similar question about another more algebra heavy question with two constraints. I simply font know where to go from this point:

I’m assuming I should plug it into the plane constraint and get lambda in terms of y, but I end up with such a mess, do you have any tips? Please ignore the second image I accidently uploaded it but I wont let me delete it.

I have a similar question about another more algebra heavy question with two constraints. I simply font know where to go from this point:

I’m assuming I should plug it into the plane constraint and get lambda in terms of y, but I end up with such a mess, do you have any tips? Please ignore the second image I accidently uploaded it but I wont let me delete it.

Attachment not found

one attachment is a paper clip - not found - so is it the one which starts off with 10) rotation matrix ... If so, its quite blurry/small. Any chance of uploading again with the full question?

Original post by mqb2766

one attachment is a paper clip - not found - so is it the one which starts off with 10) rotation matrix ... If so, its quite blurry/small. Any chance of uploading again with the full question?

Sorry here is it uploaded again:

Original post by mqb2766

and what is the actual question?

This is the question:

Before ploughing into it, you realise the significance of the previous problem (2 vars, 1 eq cons) and this one (3 vars, 2 eq cons)? In both cases, you can reduce the problem to a single variable problem by incorporating the equality constraints. Also, any reaon you - the first constraint and - the second one?

Original post by mqb2766

Before ploughing into it, you realise the significance of the previous problem (2 vars, 1 eq cons) and this one (3 vars, 2 eq cons)? In both cases, you can reduce the problem to a single variable problem by incorporating the equality constraints. Also, any reaon you - the first constraint and - the second one?

Im not sure, I did that to eliminate the u, what would you suggest I start with doing instead? Again algebra is not something I’m good at, I just dont really have the intuition!

There are probably a few ways of proceeding, but with an eye on the solution, I'd be tempted to maximize r^2 (rather than r) as it is equivalent and when you get the Lx,Ly,Lz multiply through by the relevant variable and sum them.

You should have terms then like your = 0 constraints and thing should simplify, hopefully, but not worked it through.

Alternatively, solve for mu and lambda from Lx and Ly, and sub into Lz and simplify. Hopefully it would give the solution, but again, not worked it through.

You should have terms then like your = 0 constraints and thing should simplify, hopefully, but not worked it through.

Alternatively, solve for mu and lambda from Lx and Ly, and sub into Lz and simplify. Hopefully it would give the solution, but again, not worked it through.

(edited 12 months ago)

Original post by mqb2766

There are probably a few ways of proceeding, but with an eye on the solution, I'd be tempted to maximize r^2 (rather than r) as it is equivalent and when you get the Lx,Ly,Lz multiply through by the relevant variable and sum them.

You should have terms then like your = 0 constraints and thing should simplify, hopefully, but not worked it through.

Alternatively, solve for mu and lambda from Lx and Ly, and sub into Lz and simplify. Hopefully it would give the solution, but again, not worked it through.

You should have terms then like your = 0 constraints and thing should simplify, hopefully, but not worked it through.

Alternatively, solve for mu and lambda from Lx and Ly, and sub into Lz and simplify. Hopefully it would give the solution, but again, not worked it through.

Do you think I should equate the equations and then try to get x and y in terms of z? Then try to plug into the constraints? That is what I am currently trying

Original post by grhas98

Do you think I should equate the equations and then try to get x and y in terms of z? Then try to plug into the constraints? That is what I am currently trying

No, you want to eliminate (find values for) the lagrange multipliers, lambda and mu, and end up with a single equation in x^2, y^2... which can then be subbed for r^2. Try the previous hint.

- Normal Distribution Question
- Matrices row reduction
- System of equations question
- Devide
- Edexcel (IAL) Unit 2 Chemistry June 10th
- M1 - Help thread
- STEP maths I, II, III 1990 solutions
- A Level Maths Checklist
- Isaac Senior Physics Challenge 2024
- Edexcel English Language Paper 2 advice
- AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Question bank national 5 chemistry
- How to revise for biology and chemistry a levels?
- Home Office AO Role
- I don't know how to revise for chemistry
- Help! Maths A level advice
- Senior Physics Challenge Isaac Physics
- Home Office 'Strength-based interview questions.'
- Maths interview prep help
- Is it me or are there very few past paper questions on Kinetics for AS?

- Dyson Institute 2024 Applicants
- Which is most reliable overall: CGP or SaveMyExams?
- Queen's (QUB) Undergraduate Medicine A100 Offer Holders 2024
- Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant Thread
- Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024
- Official: Lancaster University A100 2024 Entry Applicants
- Am I overthinking ?
- LSE MSc Finance 2024-25
- Dental hygiene and therapy 2024 applications
- is epq useful at all?
- Law offers - 2024 entry
- Oxford BBSRC DTP 2024
- QMUL Dentistry 2024 Entry
- Official Thread: Graduate Entry Medicine 2024 Entry
- Civil Service Fast Stream 2024 - Applicants thread
- Uni of reading life
- Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 Thread
- A-levels for vet med
- Official: St George's, University of London A100 2024 Entry
- scared of getting rejected from all 5 unis

- object oriented hell
- Mental Health Support Society XXI
- Happy February!
- Veterinary Medicine work experience
- NGDP 2024 (Cohort 26)
- Arup graduates schemes 2024
- Pupillage Application 2023-2024
- Lloyds Banking Group 2024 Graduate Scheme
- What do I do?
- muslim girl at uni next year??
- Rejection from Queen’s Univeristy Belfast
- Aberdeen Dentistry 2024 Entry
- Cambridge extenuating circumstances
- Scottish Power Graduate 2024
- Help needed - long residency
- 2024 UK Drama School Auditions
- University of Warwick medicine 2024 Entry
- "Can't you hear me, S.O.S.?": TLG's PhD study blog!
- Tatakae L's GYG Journey
- Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry Thread

- UKMT Intermediate Math Challenge 2024 - Discussion
- Help with complex summation further maths a levels
- GCSE Mathematics Study Group 2023-2024
- Could I have some help with this suvat question?
- MAT practice
- A-level Mathematics Study Group 2023-2024
- Alevel Maths Question
- weird cosine question
- Series function not differentiable at a point
- hyperbolic function catenary problem

- Mock set 4 paper 2 q14 a level maths (4 distinct points)
- can anyone answer this A level vectors question (very challenging)
- STEP foundation module help pls
- Ukmt IMC 2024
- ukmt imc
- This maths question is driving me crazy
- Maths Mechanics
- Confused on surds question
- HNC MATHS A2 Task 3 (Radio Transmitters)
- Senior Maths Challenge 2023

- UKMT Intermediate Math Challenge 2024 - Discussion
- Help with complex summation further maths a levels
- GCSE Mathematics Study Group 2023-2024
- Could I have some help with this suvat question?
- MAT practice
- A-level Mathematics Study Group 2023-2024
- Alevel Maths Question
- weird cosine question
- Series function not differentiable at a point
- hyperbolic function catenary problem

- Mock set 4 paper 2 q14 a level maths (4 distinct points)
- can anyone answer this A level vectors question (very challenging)
- STEP foundation module help pls
- Ukmt IMC 2024
- ukmt imc
- This maths question is driving me crazy
- Maths Mechanics
- Confused on surds question
- HNC MATHS A2 Task 3 (Radio Transmitters)
- Senior Maths Challenge 2023