10

I'm trying to find the maximum of $(1-q_1)(1-q_2)\ldots(1-q_n)$ where $n\ge 2$, on a the set $\{(q_1,\ldots , q_n) :q_1^2+q_2^2+\ldots+q_n^2=1 \ q_i\ge 0 \}$ (With the condition $q_i\ge0$ this is just the upper half of the sphere). This appeared to be a simple Lagrange multipliers question but calculating the derivative is becoming a problem. How is this done?

I was thinking of trying the fact that the product is the volume of a box having $(1,1\ldots 1)$ and $(q_1,\ldots ,q_n)$ at its diagonal but I can't figure out how to continue.(I'm guessing this reduces the problem to something geometrical)

Updates: Empirical evidence suggests that the maximum is when the $q_i$ are equal as pointed out by @Sabyasachi , I let WolframAlpha solve the Laplace multiplier equations for $n=2,3,4$ and got the same result(that they are equal). One solution which does not turn up in WA's solutions is that $q_3=0$ and $q_1=q_2=\frac {1} {\sqrt{2}}$ which is on the sphere and returns a larger value.

user63697
  • 597
  • 1
    Taking $q_1=q_2=\ldots=q_n$, we get maximum $\left(\frac{\sqrt{n}-1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)^n$. Try to justify the equality via symmetry. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 12:55
  • @Sabyasachi Can you elaborate? – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 13:31
  • You can always prove that the symmetry point has to be an extremal point (imagine even functions at x=0). However, there could technically be other extrema. In this case, it seems that everything is monotonous enough to prevent this, but I wouldn't know how to prove it. – orion Mar 22 '14 at 13:39
  • Since you can take the $q_j$'s are in $[0,1]$ (because of the constraint) and the case $q_j=1$ gives you $f(q)=(1-q_1)(1-q_2)\ldots(1-q_n)=0$, you may assume $f(q)=(1-q_1)(1-q_2)\ldots(1-q_n)$ is positive. Hence, it is equivalent to find the maximum of $F(q)=ln f(q)$ under the constraint, and the gradient of $F$ is nicer to compute. – Taladris Mar 22 '14 at 14:49
  • 1
    @Sabyasachi The maximum is $\frac12 \left(3-2 \sqrt2\right)$, obtained when all but two of the $q_i$ are $0$. Will work on a proof shortly if no one else does it by then... – Macavity Mar 22 '14 at 14:49
  • @Macavity Isn't it weird that the maximum won't depend on $n$? – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 15:41
  • @user63697 This stems from convexity issues, in such cases most of the variables at maximum will be at end points of the intervals. Another way to see it is that wrt any variable, (holding others fixed), your objective is a decreasing function. Without any constraints, the maximum would be all variables becoming $0$. The constraint forces exactly two variables to be non-zero. Of course this isn't a formal proof. – Macavity Mar 22 '14 at 15:58
  • @Macavity I solved it for $n=2$ and got $\frac12 \left(3-2 \sqrt2\right)$ I was thinking of proceeding by induction. Did you get any ideas? – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 18:23
  • @Macavity I used WolframAlpha for $n=3$ and I got the max when $q_1=q_2=q_3$ – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 19:46
  • 1
    @Sabyasachi The formula you give seems to be working(Here is for n=3) , I'm failing in proving it. Every time I increase the dimension the cases which appear in the equations increase exponentially. – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 19:57
  • @user63697 I have a curse that I get "hunches" like these that are almost always right but I fail to actually prove it. Nevertheless I have learnt to trust my instincts, and if this were a multiple choice test, I would mark that as an answer. Hopefully someone will come up with a proof. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:06
  • When $n=3$, for $q_1=q_2=q_3=\frac1{\sqrt3}$ the objective value is smaller than when you take $q_1=q_2=\frac1{\sqrt2}, q_3=0$. Check again with http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Maximize+%281-a%29%281-b%29%281-c%29%2C+for+a%5E2%2Bb%5E2%2Bc%5E2%3D1%2C+a%3E%3D+b%3E%3D+c%3E%3D+0 – Macavity Mar 22 '14 at 20:10
  • @Macavity ah interesting. you're right. equality would maximize $q_1q_2q_3\ldots q_n$ instead. Wait, that gives me an idea for a solution. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:14
  • @Macavity What seems to be confusing is that you solution is not appearing in the solutions to the Laplace multiplier equations. See my comment above for the link. – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 20:15
  • @user63697 he is right though. $\frac12(3-\sqrt{8}) \gt \left(\frac{\sqrt{3}-1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)^3$ – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:17
  • Yes but this equation is not satisfied: $-(1-q_1)(1-q_2)(1-q_3)=2 \lambda q_3$ if $q_3=0$ – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 20:19
  • @user63697 screw langrage multiplier for now, our initial conditions were $q_i\geqslant0$ which is satisfied. And taking $q_1=q_2=\sqrt{0.5},q_3=0$ maximizes it(at least it is more than my original expression, thus my expression cannot be maximum). Question comes down to why the langrage multiplier is seemingly giving a wrong solution. I doubt this is just wrong though. There might be something deeper. Something had to trigger that hunch. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:23
  • In the Lagrange formulation, perhaps you need to include the non-negativity constraints as well - they are binding here. Anyway, have posted my working, may refine it later if there is an easier way. – Macavity Mar 22 '14 at 20:30
  • @Macavity how would the non-negativity constraints factor? I mean the wrong results are not negative. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:31
  • I meant to have the fact $q_i\ge 0$ in the constraints but maybe the way I wrote was not clear, sorry. – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 20:34
  • @Sabyasachi If negatives are allowed, then the maximum is actually when all $q_i = - \frac1{\sqrt n}$. This follows from QM-AM-GM inequalities. I suspect the current Lagrange conditions will be satisfied by these $q_i$. – Macavity Mar 22 '14 at 20:35
  • @Macavity yes they are satisfied indeed. Yes allowing negatives would lead to $\left(\frac{\sqrt{n}+1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)^n$. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:43
  • @user63697 and because you are using WA anyway, you can actually just type in what you need It has great natural language processing. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:45
  • But wait, it says no global maxima found. Weird. Maybe because it is achieved at 3 points. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:46
  • If you agree with Macavity then yes, since only one of the three must be zero. – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 20:48
  • @user63697 i meant maybe because it is achieved at 3 points, which it clearly is. I was just wondering why Wolfram Alpha fails to find the maxima. Click my link to see what I am talking about. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:51
  • @Sabyasachi Well it is taking a lot of time and WA returns computation time exceeded. – user63697 Mar 22 '14 at 20:55
  • @user63697 it returned for me. i am uploading a screenshot wait. – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 20:56
  • @user63697 my network is slow at the moment, try wa again. It returns a maxima for $\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0\right)$ – Guy Mar 22 '14 at 21:01
  • @user63697, my answer is clearly wrong owing to Macavity's example, so I have deleted it. – David Mar 23 '14 at 01:06

4 Answers4

4

Here is a complete answer. The computations are rather long but every step is natural. Perhaps someone else can simplify the computational part of the proof.

We will show that the maximum is $M=\frac{3}{2}-\sqrt{2}$ independently of $n$, just as claimed in Macavity's comments. Let $\phi(x)=1-\sqrt{x}$ for $x\in [0,1]$. The inequality to be shown can then be restated as :

$$ \phi(x_1)\phi(x_2)\ldots \phi(x_n)\leq M, \ \text{whenever} \ x_i\geq 0, \ x_1+x_2+x_3+\ldots +x_n=1. \tag{1} $$

To show such an inequality, one of the first ideas that comes to mind is to try to show that $\phi$ satisfies properties like $\phi(x)\phi(y) \leq \phi(x+y)$ or $\phi(x+y)\leq (\phi(\frac{x+y}{2}))^2$. Unfortunately, both those are false (take $x=\frac{1}{6},y=\frac{1}{3}$). We must use a slightly corrected version of $\phi$ : let

$$ \psi(t)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{lcl} \phi(t), & \rm{if} & t\leq \alpha, \\ \phi\big(\frac{t}{2}\big)^2, & \rm{if} & t\geq \alpha, \\ \end{array}\right.\tag{2} $$

where $\alpha=4(3-2\sqrt{2})$ is the unique solution of $\phi(t)=\phi(\frac{t}{2})^2$ in $(0,1)$.

Lemma 1. $\phi \leq \psi$ on $[0,1]$.

Lemma 2. $\psi$ satisfies $\psi(x)\psi(y) \leq \psi(x+y)$, for any $x,y\in [0,1]$ with $x+y \leq 1$.

Lemmas 1 and 2 yield $$\phi(x_1)\phi(x_2)\ldots \phi(x_n) \leq \psi(x_1)\psi(x_2)\ldots \psi(x_n) \leq \psi(x_1+x_2+x_3+\ldots +x_n) =\psi(1)=M \tag{3}$$

as wished. It will therefore suffice to show those two lemmas. This we do below.

Proof of lemma 1. We must show $\phi(t) \leq \psi(t)$ for $t\in [0,1]$. Clearly, we may assume that $t\geq\alpha$. But then

$$ \psi(t)-\phi(t)=\frac{\sqrt{t}}{2}(\sqrt{t}-\sqrt{\alpha}) \geq 0. $$

Proof of lemma 2. We must show $\psi(x)\psi(y) \leq \psi(x+y)$ for $x,y\in [0,1]$.

First case : $x+y\leq \alpha$.

We then have to show that $$ (1-\sqrt{x})(1-\sqrt{y})\leq 1-\sqrt{x+y} \tag{4} $$

Putting $a=\sqrt{x},b=\sqrt{y}$, this is equivalent to

$$ \begin{array}{cl} & (1-a)(1-b)\leq 1-\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \\ \Leftrightarrow & ab+\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \leq a+b \\ \Leftrightarrow & a^2b^2+a^2+b^2+2ab\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \leq a^2+b^2+2ab \\ \Leftrightarrow & a^2b^2+2ab\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \leq 2ab \\ \Leftrightarrow & ab+2\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \leq 2 \\ \end{array} $$

Now, from the hypotheses we have $a^2+b^2 \leq \alpha$, so

$$ ab+2\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \leq \frac{a^2+b^2}{2}+2\sqrt{a^2+b^2} \leq \frac{\alpha}{2}+2\sqrt{\alpha}=6-4\sqrt{2}+4\sqrt{2}-4=2 \tag{5} $$

Second case : $x\leq \alpha, y\leq \alpha, x+y > \alpha$.

We then have to show that $$ (1-\sqrt{x})(1-\sqrt{y})\leq \bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{x+y}{2}}\bigg)^2 \tag{6} $$

Putting $a=\sqrt{x},b=\sqrt{y}$, this is equivalent to

$$ \begin{array}{cl} & (1-a)(1-b)\leq \bigg(1-\frac{\sqrt{a^2+b^2}}{2}\bigg)^2 \\ \Leftrightarrow & \sqrt{2(a^2+b^2)} \leq a+b+\frac{a^2+b^2}{2}-ab \\ & \\ \Leftrightarrow & 2(a^2+b^2) \leq \frac{a^4+b^4}{4}-(a^3b+ab^3)-(a^2b+ab^2)+(a^3+b^3)+ \frac{3a^2b^2}{2} +a^2+b^2-2ab \\ & \\ \Leftrightarrow & 0 \leq \frac{a^4+b^4}{4}-(a^3b+ab^3)-(a^2b+ab^2)+(a^3+b^3)+ \frac{3a^2b^2}{2} -a^2-b^2-2ab \\ \Leftrightarrow & 0 \leq \frac{(b-a)^2}{4}(a^2+b^2+4(a+b)-2ab-4) \\ \Leftrightarrow & 0 \leq a^2+b^2+4(a+b)-2ab-4 \\ \Leftarrow & 0 \leq \alpha+4(a+b)-2ab-4 \\ \Leftrightarrow & 0 \leq 4(a+b)-2ab-4\sqrt{\alpha} \ ({\rm since} \ \alpha-4=-4\sqrt{\alpha})\\ \Leftrightarrow & 2(\sqrt{\alpha}-a) \leq b(2-a) \\ \Leftrightarrow & 4(\sqrt{\alpha}-a)^2 \leq b^2(2-a)^2 \\ \Leftarrow & 4(\sqrt{\alpha}-a)^2 \leq (\alpha-a^2)(2-a)^2 \\ \Leftrightarrow & 4(\sqrt{\alpha}-a) \leq (\sqrt{\alpha}+a)(2-a)^2 \\ \end{array} $$

The last inequality is true because

$$ (\sqrt{\alpha}+a)(2-a)^2-4(\sqrt{\alpha}-a)=a(16(1-\sqrt{\alpha})+(\sqrt{\alpha}-a)(\alpha+2\sqrt{\alpha}-a)) \tag{7} $$

\newpage

Third case : One of $x,y$ is smaller than $\alpha$, the other is larger.

We can assume $x \leq \alpha \leq y \leq 1-x$. Notice that $x\leq 1-\alpha$. We then have to show that $$ (1-\sqrt{x})\bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{y}{2}}\bigg)^2\leq \bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{x+y}{2}}\bigg)^2 \tag{8} $$

To this end, let us put $F_1(y)=\frac{1-\sqrt{\frac{x+y}{2}}}{1-\sqrt{\frac{y}{2}}}$ for $y\in [\alpha,1-x]$. A little computation shows that

$$ {F'}_1(y)=\frac{F_2(y)}{\sqrt{y(x+y)}\bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{y}{2}}\bigg)^2}, \ F_2(y)=\sqrt{x+y}-\sqrt{y}-\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}} \tag{9} $$

Note that ${F'}_2(y)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x+y}}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{y}} \leq 0$ so $F_2$ is decreasing, and hence $F_2(y)\leq F_2(\alpha)=F_3(x)$ where $F_3(x)=\sqrt{x+\alpha}-\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}-\sqrt{\alpha}$. Note that ${F'}_3(y)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x+\alpha}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \leq 0$ and $2\sqrt{x+\alpha} \geq 2\sqrt{\alpha} > 1.5 > \sqrt{2}$, so $F_3$ is decreasing, and hence $F_3(x) \leq F_3(0)=0$. We see now that $F_2(y) \leq 0$, so $F_1$ is decreasing, and hence $F_1(y)\geq F_1(1-x)$. So in the proof of (8), we can assume that $y=1-x$ : all we need to show is

$$ (1-\sqrt{x})\bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{1-x}{2}}\bigg)^2\leq \bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg)^2 \tag{10} $$

Putting $a=\sqrt{x}$, this is equivalent to

$$ \begin{array}{cl} & (1-a)\bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{1-a^2}{2}}\bigg)^2\leq \frac{3}{2}-\sqrt{2} \\ \Leftrightarrow &(1-a)\bigg(1-\sqrt{2(1-a^2)}+\frac{1-a^2}{2}\bigg)\leq \frac{3}{2}-\sqrt{2} \\ & \\ \Leftrightarrow & (1-a)\bigg(1+\frac{1-a^2}{2}\bigg)-(\frac{3}{2}-\sqrt{2})\leq (1-a)\sqrt{2(1-a^2)} \\ \Leftrightarrow & \frac{a^3-a^2-3a}{2}+\sqrt{2}\leq (1-a)\sqrt{2(1-a^2)} \\ \Leftarrow & \bigg(\frac{a^3-a^2-3a}{2}-\sqrt{2}\bigg)^2\leq (1-a)^22(1-a^2) \\ \end{array} $$

The last inequality is true because $a\leq\sqrt{1-\alpha} \leq 0.6=\frac{3}{5}$ and

$$ \begin{array}{cl} & 2(1-a)^2(1-a^2)-\bigg(\frac{a^3-a^2-3a}{2}-\sqrt{2}\bigg)^2 \\ =& \frac{a}{4}(-a^5+2a^4 - 3a^3 + (10-4\sqrt{2})a^2 + (4\sqrt{2} - 9)a + (12\sqrt{2}- 16)) \\ \geq& \frac{a}{4}(-a^5+2a^4 - 3a^3 +\frac{108}{25}a^2 + -\frac{84}{25}a + \frac{24}{25} \end{array} \tag{11} $$

Fourth case : Both $x$ and $y$ are larger than $\alpha$.

We then have to show that $$ \bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{x}{2}}\bigg)^2\bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{y}{2}}\bigg)^2\leq \bigg(1-\sqrt{\frac{x+y}{2}}\bigg)^2 \tag{12} $$

But this is simply inequality (4) of the first case, used with $(\frac{x}{2},\frac{y}{2})$ in place of $(x,y)$. And this is all OK since $\frac{x}{2}$ and $\frac{y}{2}$ are both $\leq \frac{1}{2} \leq \alpha$, so we only need to reuse our already treated first case. This concludes the proof.

Ewan Delanoy
  • 61,600
3

${\bf 1\ }$ We begin with the following two-dimensional problem: Maximize $$f(q_1,q_2):=(1-q_1)(1-q_2)$$ under the constraints $$q_1^2+q_2^2=r^2, \quad q_1\geq0, \ q_2\geq0\ .$$ Here $r$ is a parameter, $0<r\leq1$. Analyzing the graphs of the functions $$g_r(t):=(1-r\cos t)(1-r\sin t)\qquad(0\leq t\leq{\pi\over2})$$ we find the following (see the figure):

enter image description here

(a) When $r<\rho:=2(\sqrt{2}-1)$ then $$q_1q_2>0\quad\Rightarrow\quad f(q_1,q_2)<f(r,0)\ .$$ (b) When $r>\rho$ then $$q_1\ne q_2\quad\Rightarrow\quad f(q_1,q_2)<f\left({r\over\sqrt{2}},{r\over\sqrt{2}}\right)\ .$$ ${\bf 2\ }$ Now let $n\geq2$ be arbitrary and assume that $q=(q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_n)$ is an admissible point where $f$ assumes its maximum. Put $$\tau:={1\over2}\rho^2\doteq0.343>{1\over3}\ .$$ In the light of ${\bf 1}$ there can be at most one $i$ with $0<q_i^2<\tau$, and as $\tau>{1\over3}$ there can be at most two $i$ with $q_i^2\geq\tau$. All other $q_i$ have to be zero.

${\bf 3\ }$ When $0<q_1^2<\tau\leq q_2^2\leq q_3^2$ then $$q_1^2+q_2^2=1-q_3^2\leq 1-\tau<2\tau=\rho^2\ .$$ From ${\bf 1}$(a) we then conclude that $q$ cannot be a maximum point.

${\bf 4\ }$ When only $q_1^2$ and $q_2^2$ are $>0$ then ${\bf 1}$(b) with $r=1$ tells us that we have $q_1=q_2={1\over\sqrt{2}}$, and this leads to the maximal value $$\max f=\left(1-{1\over\sqrt{2}}\right)^2={1\over2}(3-2\sqrt{2})\doteq0.0858\ .$$

2

Addendum: I've included the full set of solutions Mathematica finds for the case $n=3$ at the end of this answer.


The comments and answers so far don't show how Lagrange multipliers can solve the problem (because of the non-negativity condition). Here's how that technique can be used.

To maximize a function $f(q_1,\dots, q_n)$ with the requirement that $q_i\ge0$ and an additional constraint $c(q_1,\dots, q_n)=0$, it suffices to maximize the function $f(s_1^2,\dots, s_n^2)$ subject to the constraint $c(s_1^2,\dots, s_n^2)=0$, then choose those solutions with all $s_i$ real that give the largest value of $f$. For these, $(s_1^2,\dots, s_n^2)$ is a non-negative solution to the original constrained maximization question.

For this particular question, then, maximize $\prod(1-s_i^2)$ subject to $\sum s_i^4=1$.

Here’s the three-variable case, where we need to maximize $(1-a)(1-b)(1-c)$ for $a,b,c\ge0$, subject to $a^2+b^2+c^2=1$.

Maximize $(1-x^2)(1-y^2)(1-z^2)$ subject to $x^4+y^4+z^4=1$. Using Lagrange multipliers, let $g(x,y,z,\lambda)=(1-x^2)(1-y^2)(1-z^2)-\lambda(x^4+y^4+z^4-1)$, and solve the following system of equations over the real numbers:

$$\begin{align} 0 = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = & -2x(1-y^2)(1-z^2)+4x^3\lambda\\ 0 = \frac{\partial f}{\partial y} = & -2y(1-x^2)(1-z^2)+4y^3\lambda\\ 0 = \frac{\partial f}{\partial z} = & -2z(1-x^2)(1-y^2)+4z^3\lambda\\ 0 = \frac{\partial f}{\partial \lambda} = & x^4+y^4+z^4-1\\ \end{align}$$

When a solution $(x,y,z,\lambda)$ of this system gives a maximum among all real solutions, $(x^2,y^2, z^2)$ is a solution to the original question.

The system is no fun to solve, and I didn't try to generalize to see if it gives a nice answer the original question in general. In theory it will, but whether it's any simpler than the other answers, I don't know.


Here are all of Mathematica’s real solutions to the system above, written in terms of $a=x^2,b=y^2,c=z^2$.

$ \begin{array}{llll} (a,b,c) & (1-a)(1-b)(1-c)\\ \hline\\ \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, 0\right) & \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2 \\ \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} , 0 , \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) & \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2 \\ \left(0 , \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} , \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)& \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2 \\ \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} , \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} , \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \right)& \left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right) ^3 \\ \left(\frac{2}{3}, \frac{2}{3} , \frac{1}{3} \right)& \frac{2}{27} \\ \left(\frac{2}{3} , \frac{1}{3} , \frac{2}{3} \right)& \frac{2}{27} \\ \left(\frac{1}{3} , \frac{2}{3} , \frac{2}{3} \right)& \frac{2}{27} \\ (1 , 0 , 0) & 0 \\ (0 , 1 , 0) & 0 \\ (0 , 0 , 1) & 0 \\ \end{array} $

Steve Kass
  • 14,881
  • I appreciate your effort, but I wish you went through the comments. We had WolframAlpha solve these systems for n=3 and obtained that they must be equal, however asking wolfram to maximize the function gave another answer. I'm sorry but your answer doesn't put anything new on the table. And the last equation needs a $-1$ – user63697 Mar 23 '14 at 14:14
  • I did go through the comments, and I also ran my equations through Mathematica. They definitely give the correct solution (two non-zero values). Of course Mathematica also gives the all-equal solutions, because the are among the relative extrema, but they aren’t where the maxima are. I've included a screenshot of the Mathematica output showing ${a,b,c,\mbox{objective}}$ for all real solutions of the Lagrange multiplier equations in descending order of the value of the objective. Note that the objective is maximized when two of $a,b,c$ are non-zero, as expected. http://i.imgur.com/ggc0pUs.png – Steve Kass Mar 23 '14 at 15:39
  • That is rather interesting, how the case appears for these equations. What is left however is proving this works in general. – user63697 Mar 23 '14 at 15:44
  • Now that you see this does add something to the table, please consider upvoting the answer. It will definitely “work” in general - the correct solution will always appear - since Lagrange multipliers is a valid technique when all the constraints are incorporated. Whether the solution for all $k$ can be deduced in a simple way from the system of equations, that I don't know. But this is definitely a general and valid way to solve the problem. – Steve Kass Mar 23 '14 at 15:55
0

If any of the $q_i$ are 1, then the product is zero.
Otherwise, take the logarithm, and try to maximize
$\log(1-q_1)+\log(1-q_2)+\ldots+\log(1-q_n)$

Empy2
  • 50,853