Proving the Maximum Volume of a Rectangular Parallelepiped: A Geometric Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter John O' Meara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Maximum Volume
John O' Meara
325
0
Prove that the maximum volume of a rectangular parallelepiped with a fixed surface area is when it is a cube.

Volume = v, length = l, width = w, height = h and surface area = s. Then we have: v = l*w*h = h^3. s = 2*w*l + 2*w*h + 2*h*l = constant = 6*h^2.

For a maximum to exist (\frac{{\partial ^2 y}}{{\partial x^2 }})(\frac{{\partial^2 y}}{{\partial x^2}}) - (\frac{{\partial^2 y}}{{\partial x}{\partial t }}) > 0.

Where x, y and t are unknown to me. I just need some help to get started. Thank you very much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you might try using the method of Lagrange multipliers, maximizing f(l, w, h) = v under the condtion that \phi (l, w, h)= s where v and s are constants with the multiplier \lamda.
 
Last edited:
The book that I am using is an introduction to Calculus, which does not have Lagrange multipliers in it. So by asking this question, it would imply that the question can be done without recourse to Lagrange multipliers. So I would think.
Anyway thanks for the reply.
 
Okay, You know that the surface area of a given x by y by z parallelogram is 2xy+ 2xz+ 2yz= A and the volume is V= xyz.
From 2xy+ 2xz+ 2yz= A, you know that z(2x+2y)= A- 2xy so z= (A- 2xy)/(2x+ 2y). That means that, as a function of x and y, V= xy((A- 2xy)/(2x+ 2y))

Now, what does that tell you?
 
I can do the following: \frac{{\partial V}}{{\partial x }} = 0 \\ and \frac{{ \partial V}}{{\partial y}} = 0 \\, and then solve for x and y. To find that x^2 = Y^2 \\. Then I can find an expression for V in terms of z and y only, then \frac{{ \partial V}}{{\partial z}} = 0 \\ and solve for y and z to get: y^2 = z^2 Thanks for the reply.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply . Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top