Week 3: The Lagrange Breakthrough

Summary

This week was a breakthrough. After years of using Lagrange multipliers as a mechanical procedure (take derivatives, set to zero, solve), I finally understand why they work. The key was thinking geometrically: at a constrained optimum, the gradient of the objective must be parallel to the gradient of the constraint. That parallelism is what $\lambda$ captures.

Goals for This Week

• Work through Strang Chapter 6 (eigenvalues)
• Review Lagrange multipliers from first principles
• Complete 10 optimization problems
• Start Grinstead & Snell Chapter 4 (pushed to next week)

What I Learned

Key Insight 1: The Geometric Picture

At a constrained maximum of $f(x, y)$ subject to $g(x, y) = c$, you’re standing on the level curve $g = c$. If $\nabla f$ pointed along the constraint (had a component tangent to $g = c$), you could walk that direction and increase $f$—so you’re not at a maximum.

Therefore, at the optimum, $\nabla f$ must be perpendicular to the constraint, which means parallel to $\nabla g$ (since $\nabla g$ is also perpendicular to its own level curves).

$$\nabla f = \lambda \nabla g$$

The scalar $\lambda$ just accounts for different magnitudes.

Key Insight 2: $\lambda$ Has Meaning

The multiplier $\lambda$ isn’t just an artifact—it’s the sensitivity of the optimal value to the constraint. If you solve the problem with constraint $g(x) = c$, then:

$$\frac{d f^*}{d c} = \lambda$$

In economics, this is called the “shadow price” of the constraint. In physics, it’s the force required to maintain the constraint.

Key Insight 3: Connection to MaxEnt

The [[Maxent Mean Constraint]] derivation suddenly makes sense. We maximize entropy $H[p]$ subject to normalization and mean constraints. The Lagrange multipliers are the temperature-like parameters. This isn’t a coincidence—statistical mechanics and information theory use the same math because they’re the same problem.

What I Built

• [[Lagrange Multipliers]] concept note (finally!)
• [[Maxent Mean Constraint]] derivation (updated with proper understanding)
• 10 worked problems in my problem bank

Struggles

Challenge 1: Multiple Constraints

What happened: Got confused about how to handle two constraints simultaneously. Set up the Lagrangian wrong.

How I resolved it: Each constraint gets its own multiplier. The condition becomes $\nabla f = \lambda_1 \nabla g_1 + \lambda_2 \nabla g_2$. Geometrically, $\nabla f$ must lie in the plane spanned by the constraint gradients.

Challenge 2: Second-Order Conditions

What happened: Found critical points that weren’t optima. Embarrassingly submitted a “solution” that was actually a saddle point.

Status: Still building intuition here. The bordered Hessian test exists but feels like black magic. Need to work more examples.

Time Breakdown

Activity	Hours
Reading (Strang Ch. 6)	2
Problem sets	3.5
Writing notes	1.5
Mathematica tinkering	1
Total	8

Reflections

This is the most satisfying week so far. The “aha” feeling when the geometric picture clicked was worth all the frustration of the past two weeks. I think I was trying to understand procedures instead of concepts—a classic trap.

The connection to MaxEnt is exciting. I can see how the information-theoretic framework is going to unify a lot of things. When Jaynes says “probability theory is extended logic,” I’m starting to feel what he means.

Still worried about pacing. I’m behind on Grinstead & Snell, and I haven’t touched Mathematica as much as planned. Need to be more disciplined about protecting weekend mornings.

Connections Made

• Realized that [[Eigenvalues as Natural Frequencies]] and Lagrange multipliers are related—both involve finding special directions where things simplify
• The dual problem in optimization is about the Lagrange multipliers becoming the variables—mind-bending but starting to make sense

Questions Generated

• [[Why Does the Bordered Hessian Work?]]
• How does KKT generalize Lagrange to inequalities?

Next Week

Goals

1. Complete Grinstead & Snell Chapters 4-5
2. Work through 5 more constrained optimization problems
3. Build first Mathematica demonstration ([[Binary Entropy Explorer]])

Priorities

• Must do: G&S Chapter 4 (continuous distributions)
• Should do: Start thinking about entropy more formally
• Could do: Read Jaynes 1957 paper (will wait until I have foundations)

Mood

Energized

The breakthrough was exactly what I needed. Feeling motivated and actually enjoying the math again instead of grinding through it.

---

Week 3 of 78 (Phase 0: Prerequisites)

Progress: 4%