{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

mathNPP2-07-draft

# mathNPP2-07-draft - P r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t o n l y...

This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: P r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t o n l y : p l e a s e c h e c k f o r fi n a l v e r s i o n ARE211, Fall 2007 LECTURE #22: TUE, NOV 13, 2007 PRINT DATE: AUGUST 21, 2007 (NPP2) Contents 6. Nonlinear Programming Problems and the Kuhn Tucker conditions (cont) 1 6.2. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a solution to an NPP (cont) 1 6.2.1. Preliminaries: the problem of the vanishing gradient 2 6.2.2. Preliminaries: The relationship between quasi-concavity and the Hessian of f 4 6.2.3. Preliminaries: The relationship between (strict) quasi-concavity and (strict) concavity 6 6.3. Sufficient Conditions for a solution to the NPP 7 6. Nonlinear Programming Problems and the Kuhn Tucker conditions (cont) 6.2. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a solution to an NPP (cont) So far we’ve only established necessary conditions for a solution to the NPP. But we can’t stop here. We could have found a minimum on the constraint set, and the same KKT conditions would be satisfied. In this lecture we focus on finding sufficient conditions for a solution, and in particular, conditions under which the KKT conditions will be both necessary and almost but not quite sufficient for a solution. The basic sufficiency conditions we’re going to rely on are that the objective function f is strictly quasi-concave while the constraint functions are quasi-convex. But there are a lot of subtleties that we need to address. We begin with some preliminary issues. 1 2 LECTURE #22: TUE, NOV 13, 2007 PRINT DATE: AUGUST 21, 2007 (NPP2) 6.2.1. Preliminaries: the problem of the vanishing gradient. In addition to the usual quasi-concavity, quasi-convexity conditions, we have to deal with the familiar annoyance posed by the example: max x 3 on [- 1 , 1]. Obviously this problem has a solution at x = 1. However, at x = 0, the KKT condi- tions are satisfied, i.e., gradient is zero, and so can be written as a nonnegative linear combination of the constraints vectors, with weights zero applied to each of the constraints, niether of which is satisfied with equality. That is, f prime ( x ) = 0 which is the sum of the gradients of two constraints at zero, each weighted by zero. So without imposing a restriction that excludes function such as this, we cannot say that satisfying the KKT conditions is sufficient for a max when the objective and constraint functions have the right “quasi” properties. To exclude this case, we could assume that f has a non-vanishing gradient. But this restriction throws the baby out with the bath-water: e.g., the problem max x (1- x ) s.t. x ∈ [0 , 1] has a global max at 0.5, at which point the gradient vanishes. So we want to exclude precisely those functions that have vanishing gradients at x ’s which are not unconstrained maxima. The following condition on f —called pseudoconcavity in S&B (the original name) and M.K.9 in MWG—does just this, in addition to implying quasi-concavity....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page1 / 12

mathNPP2-07-draft - P r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t o n l y...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online