Can an optimization problem in which the objective and constraints are all polynomials with rational coefficients have a solution involving transcendental values?
2026-03-27 08:16:53.1774599413
Transcendental solutions to constrained polynomial optimization problems?
199 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in OPTIMIZATION
- Optimization - If the sum of objective functions are similar, will sum of argmax's be similar
- optimization with strict inequality of variables
- Gradient of Cost Function To Find Matrix Factorization
- Calculation of distance of a point from a curve
- Find all local maxima and minima of $x^2+y^2$ subject to the constraint $x^2+2y=6$. Does $x^2+y^2$ have a global max/min on the same constraint?
- What does it mean to dualize a constraint in the context of Lagrangian relaxation?
- Modified conjugate gradient method to minimise quadratic functional restricted to positive solutions
- Building the model for a Linear Programming Problem
- Maximize the function
- Transform LMI problem into different SDP form
Related Questions in NONLINEAR-OPTIMIZATION
- Prove that Newton's Method is invariant under invertible linear transformations
- set points in 2D interval with optimality condition
- Finding a mixture of 1st and 0'th order Markov models that is closest to an empirical distribution
- Sufficient condition for strict minimality in infinite-dimensional spaces
- Weak convergence under linear operators
- Solving special (simple?) system of polynomial equations (only up to second degree)
- Smallest distance to point where objective function value meets a given threshold
- KKT Condition and Global Optimal
- What is the purpose of an oracle in optimization?
- Prove that any Nonlinear program can be written in the form...
Related Questions in TRANSCENDENTAL-NUMBERS
- Two minor questions about a transcendental number over $\Bbb Q$
- Is it possible to express $\pi$ as $a^b$ for $a$ and $b$ non-transcendental numbers?
- Is it true that evaluating a polynomial with integer coefficients at $e$, uniquely defines it?
- Is $\frac{5\pi}{6}$ a transcendental or an algebraic number?
- Is there any intermediate fields between these two fields?
- Is there any pair of positive integers $ (x,n)$ for which :$e^{{e}^{{e}^{\cdots x}}}=2^{n}$?
- Why is :$\displaystyle {e}^\sqrt{2}$ is known to be transcedental number but ${\sqrt{2}}^ {e}$ is not known?
- Irrationality of $\int_{-a}^ax^nn^xd x$
- Proving that $ 7<\frac{5\phi e}{\pi}< 7.0000689$ where $\phi$ is the Golden Ratio
- Transcendence of algebraic numbers with Transcendental power
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
I'm assuming what you mean is the following:
As A.Γ. pointed out, it's possible that the set that reaches the minimum is a line, in which case they can certainly be transcendental. I am henceforth assuming that there are finitely many points where the minimum is reached; a corollary of this is that all of the points reaching global minima satisfy $\nabla f = \lambda \nabla g$ for some real $\lambda$ (Lagrange multipliers).
We can consider $a_1,\cdots,a_n,\lambda$ as $n+1$ variables, with the $n+1$ conditions that
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\bigg|_{\mathbb{a}}=\lambda \frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}\bigg|_{\mathbb{a}}$$
for all $1\leq i\leq n$, and $g(\mathbb{a})=0$. These are all polynomial equations in the predefined $n+1$ variables, and (by our assumptions) it is well-behaved. Algebraically, for some polynomials with rational (we may presume integer) coefficients $P_1,\cdots,P_{n+1}$, we can represent our equations as $P_k(a_1,\cdots,a_n,\lambda)=0$ for all $1\leq k\leq n+1$.
We will prove, by induction on $m$, that a system of $m$ polynomial equations with rational coefficients in $m$ variables will, if it has only finitely many solutions, have only algebraic ones (it might have none).
Base case: If $m=1$ this is just the definition of an algebraic number; either there are finitely many algebraic solutions or the polynomial is the zero polynomial.
Inductive step: Assume one has a set of $m+1$ polynomial equations in $m+1$ variables. Let those variables be $x_1,\cdots,x_{m+1}$, and WLOG let the $(m+1)$-th equation depend on $x_{m+1}$ (if not, we may simply reorder the equations). Each of our $m+1$ equations can be viewed as a polynomial equation in $x_{m+1}$ with coefficients rational-coefficiented polynomials in $x_1,\cdots,x_m$.
Recall that two polynomials have a common root iff their resultant is $0$. Since this resultant is a rational-coefficiented polynomial in terms of the coefficients, we get that for any two polynomials in our list, their resultant (when viewed as a polynomial in $x_{m+1}$) being $0$ is a polynomial equation in $x_1,\cdots,x_m$. Thus, there exists a simultaneous solution for $x_{m+1}$ iff the polynomial equations determined by the resultant of $P_i$ and $P_{m+1}$ (for all $1\leq i \leq m$) are all solved (they are $m$ equations in $x_1,\cdots,x_m$).
So, by the inductive hypothesis, either there are infinitely many solutions, or all solutions result in $x_1,\cdots,x_m$ all being algebraic. In addition, since there was nothing special in the ordering of our variables, $x_2,\cdots,x_{m+1}$ are all algebraic. Thus, all of the variables are algebraic, finishing the inductive step.