User Name Remember Me? Password

 Economics Economics Forum - Financial Mathematics, Econometrics, Operations Research, Mathematical Finance, Computational Finance

 October 31st, 2017, 07:43 AM #1 Newbie   Joined: Sep 2017 From: Latvia/Denmark Posts: 21 Thanks: 0 Production function. A firm's production function is given by Q=50KL Unit capital and labour costs are 2 and 3 respectively. Find the values of K and L which minimise total input costs if the production quota is 1200. Yeah, I hope somebody can help me solve this. Hardstuck. :/ Last edited by skipjack; December 1st, 2017 at 11:09 AM. October 31st, 2017, 05:04 PM #2 Senior Member   Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 1,310 Thanks: 551 This problem represents a minimization problem subject to constraints. First define the objective function that is to be minimized, namely $C = 2K + 3L.$ Conceptually, there are three constraints, namely $Q = 1200,\ 0 \le K,\ \text { and } 0 \le L,\ \text { given } Q = 50KL.$ However, in this case, it is obvious that K > 0 < L so only the first constraint is relevant. Do you know the method of Lagrangian multipliers? $M = C + \lambda (Q - 1200) = 2K + 3L + \lambda (50KL - 1200).$ $\dfrac{ \delta M}{ \delta K} = 2 + 50 \lambda L.$ $\dfrac{ \delta M}{ \delta L}= 3 + 50 \lambda K.$ $\dfrac{ \delta M}{ \delta \lambda }= 50KL - 1200.$ $\dfrac{ \delta M}{ \delta \lambda } = 0 \implies 50KL = 1200 \implies 0 < K = \dfrac{24}{L}.$ $\dfrac{ \delta M}{ \delta K } = 0 \implies 2 = -\ 50 \lambda L \implies \lambda = -\ \dfrac{1}{25L}.$ $\dfrac{ \delta M}{ \delta L} = 0 \implies 3 = -\ 50 \lambda K = (-\ 50) * \left ( -\ \dfrac{1}{25 L} \right ) * \dfrac{24}{L} = \dfrac{48}{L^2} \implies$ $3L^2 = 48 \implies L^2 = 16 \implies L = 4 \implies K = \dfrac{24}{4}= 6.$ Let's see if that makes sense. $50 * 4 * 6 = 200 * 6 = 1200.$ We get the desired quantity. $C = 2K + 3L = 2 * 6 + 3 * 4 = 12 + 12 = 24.$ Now vary L by x and K by y, keeping Q constant. $1200 = 50(4 + x)(6 + y) \implies 24 = 24 + 4y + 6x + xy \implies y = -\ \dfrac{6x}{x + 4}, \text { where } -\ 4 < x.$ So the difference in cost by varying is $e= \left \{3(4 + x) + 2 * \left ( 6 - \dfrac{6x}{x + 4} \right ) \right \} - 24 = 3x + \dfrac{-\ 12x}{x + 4} = \dfrac{3x^2 + 12x - 12x}{x + 4} = \dfrac{3x^2}{x + 4}.$ $-\ 4 < x \text { and } x \ne 0 \implies e > 0 \text {, but } -\ 4 < x = 0 \implies e = 0.$ So cost is indeed minimized at $K = 6$ and $L = 4$. A great deal of micro-economics depends on Lagrangian multipliers. Learn them. Thanks from greg1313 Last edited by skipjack; December 1st, 2017 at 10:44 AM. November 26th, 2017, 05:19 PM #3 Senior Member   Joined: Oct 2013 From: New York, USA Posts: 661 Thanks: 87 The basic constrained maximization problem of the maximum area that be enclosed by a fixed rectangular perimeter has the length and width as equal. In this case 2K = 3L = 12. Can it be said generically that the two terms should be equal without doing all the work? November 26th, 2017, 05:42 PM #4 Senior Member   Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,838 Thanks: 653 Math Focus: Yet to find out. What do you mean enclosed by a rectangular perimeter? Also, since the number of variables is small, we can solve graphically with level sets. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cbvhzbfvud November 28th, 2017, 04:28 AM   #5
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2013
From: New York, USA

Posts: 661
Thanks: 87

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joppy What do you mean enclosed by a rectangular perimeter?
I mean that given a perimeter of 8, having all the sides be equal (2 in this case) produces an area of 4, which is a greater area than a 1.5x2.5 rectangle or any other rectangle. November 28th, 2017, 11:48 AM   #6
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 551

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EvanJ I mean that given a perimeter of 8, having all the sides be equal (2 in this case) produces an area of 4, which is a greater area than a 1.5x2.5 rectangle or any other rectangle.
This has NOTHING to do with production functions or with Lagrangian multipliers. Why did you tack it on to this post?

$A = x * \dfrac{8 - 2x }{2} = 0.5(8x - 2x^2) = 4x - x^2 \implies$

$\dfrac{dA}{dx} = 4 - 2x \text { and } \dfrac{d^2A}{dx^2} = -\ 2 \implies$

$A \text { is maximum if } x = 2.$

Basic calculus.

Last edited by JeffM1; November 28th, 2017 at 12:02 PM. November 30th, 2017, 02:58 PM #7 Senior Member   Joined: Oct 2013 From: New York, USA Posts: 661 Thanks: 87 What I posted would make a problem in this form: Maximize AB (the area of a rectangle) with 2A + 2B = to the perimeter given in a problem. How is that different from what this topic asks? Let's say the constraints remain the same, but we wanted to minimize C = 4K + 3L instead of C = 2K + 3L. What would the answer be? I'm trying to learn. Last edited by EvanJ; November 30th, 2017 at 03:03 PM. November 30th, 2017, 04:15 PM   #8
Senior Member

Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,838
Thanks: 653

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EvanJ What I posted would make a problem in this form: Maximize AB (the area of a rectangle) with 2A + 2B = to the perimeter given in a problem. How is that different from what this topic asks?
It's almost the complete opposite. Your objective function is a product, and the constraints are a sum.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EvanJ Let's say the constraints remain the same, but we wanted to minimize C = 4K + 3L instead of C = 2K + 3L. What would the answer be? I'm trying to learn.
The constraints and the objective function don't function independently from each other. Did you try follow through with JeffM1's solution with the new numbers?

Last edited by skipjack; December 1st, 2017 at 10:51 AM. December 1st, 2017, 05:52 AM   #9
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 551

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EvanJ What I posted would make a problem in this form: Maximize AB (the area of a rectangle) with 2A + 2B = to the perimeter given in a problem. How is that different from what this topic asks? Let's say the constraints remain the same, but we wanted to minimize C = 4K + 3L instead of C = 2K + 3L. What would the answer be? I'm trying to learn.
Well, yes you could turn what is a simple calculus problem into a problem using a Lagrangian multiplier if you are masochistic enough. (It still would have NOTHING to do with production functions.)

$A = xy \text {, subject to } 2x + 2y = 8.$

So set up L as

$L= xy - \lambda \{8 - 2(x + y)\}.$

$\therefore \dfrac{ \delta L}{ \delta \lambda } = 8 - 2(x + y).$

$\dfrac{ \delta L}{\delta x} = y + 2 \lambda.$

$\dfrac{ \delta L}{ \delta y} = x + 2 \lambda.$

$\therefore \dfrac{ \delta L}{ \delta \lambda } = 0 \implies 8 - 2(x + y) = 0 \implies x + y = 4 \implies y = 4 - x.$

$\therefore \dfrac{ \delta L }{ \delta x } = 0 \implies y + 2 \lambda = 0 \implies \lambda = \dfrac{-\ y}{2} = \dfrac{x - 4}{2}.$

$\therefore \dfrac{ \delta L }{ \delta y} = 0 \implies 0 = x + 2 \lambda = x + 2 * \dfrac{x - 4}{2} = x + x - 4 \implies 2x = 4 \implies$

$x = 2,\ y = 4 - 2 = 2.$

EDIT 1: Notice that I should be calculating second derivatives as well.

EDIT 2: I suppose that you CAN use Lagrangian multipliers in any problem requiring optimization of a differentiable objective function under constraint. Joppy seems to know a criterion that indicates when you MUST use LaGrangian multipliers.

Last edited by JeffM1; December 1st, 2017 at 06:10 AM. December 1st, 2017, 12:51 PM   #10
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,969
Thanks: 2219

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EvanJ How is that different from what this topic asks? Let's say the constraints remain the same, but we wanted to minimize C = 4K + 3L instead of C = 2K + 3L.
Using the various lengthy methods given above, the new answers would be K = 3√2 and L = 4√2.
Notice that 4K = 3L = 12√2.

However, the above values are irrational, which is presumably unsatisfactory.

If K and L must be integers, K = 4 and L = 6, but I don't see an easy method (other than trial and error) of finding these.

For the original problem, you need to minimize 2K + 3L = 2K + p²/(2K),
where p can be an integer, namely 12, because (2K)(3L) = (6/50)1200 = 144 = 12².

As 2K + p²/(2K) = (2K - p)²/(2K) + 2p,
K = p/2 = 6 (which implies L = 4) minimizes the sum and these values happen to be integers. As K and L have to be non-negative, I didn't need to consider using p = -12. Tags function, production Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page Display Modes Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Reid Applied Math 1 February 8th, 2017 01:50 AM Monox D. I-Fly Pre-Calculus 2 September 4th, 2014 05:47 AM tsl182forever8 Calculus 1 March 3rd, 2012 04:28 PM catherine19 Economics 0 August 8th, 2011 04:28 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top      