MA Economics — Sem I

Mathematics for Economics — Econ 503 · Example-heavy Notes अर्थशास्त्रका लागि गणित — Econ 503 · उदाहरण-केन्द्रित नोट

Full Marks 100 · Credit 3 · Lecture hours 48 · First Semester · References mostly from Chiang & Wainwright पूर्णाङ्क १०० · क्रेडिट ३ · पाठ्यघण्टा ४८ · पहिलो सेमेस्टर · सन्दर्भ मुख्यतया Chiang & Wainwright बाट

How to use this page Math is learned by doing, not reading. Every concept below has at least one (often 3-5) worked examples with complete step-by-step solutions, exactly in the Chiang & Wainwright style. Always cover the answer and try to solve before peeking.
The structure for each technique:
  1. Definition / formula card — what it is, when it applies.
  2. Worked examples — pure-math first, then economic application.
  3. Past-paper-style numericals from 2014-2020 TU papers where available.
Chiang chapter references are tagged at the end of each unit.
गणित अभ्यासले सिकिन्छ — पढाइले होइन। हरेक concept मा worked example चरण-चरणको हल सहित Chiang शैलीमा। पहिले उत्तर ढाक्नुहोस्, आफै हल गर्ने प्रयास गर्नुहोस्।
प्रत्येक technique को संरचना: definition/सूत्र card → worked example → past-paper numerical।

Syllabus unitsपाठ्यक्रमका युनिट

  1. Real Analysis — 4 hrs
  2. Optimization — 12 hrs · biggest weight
  3. Differential Equations — 9 hrs
  4. Difference Equations — 9 hrs
  5. Optimal Control Theory — 6 hrs
  6. Linear Programming — 7 hrs
Unit I — Real Analysisयुनिट I — वास्तविक विश्लेषण 4 hrs
Why real analysis comes first Every optimization, every differential equation, every limit you take in later units relies on the basic vocabulary of sets, functions, sequences, and continuity. This unit is short (4 hours) but its content is used everywhere. Chiang covers most of this in chapters 1-3 of Fundamental Methods. पछिको हरेक optimization, differential equation, limit ले set, function, sequence, continuity को आधारभूत शब्दावली प्रयोग गर्छ। Chiang को अध्याय १-३।

1.1 Sets and set operations

Notation

Set: a well-defined collection of distinct objects. Element: $x \in A$ means $x$ belongs to $A$. Empty set: $\varnothing$ or $\{\}$. Subset: $A \subseteq B$ means every $x \in A$ is also in $B$.

Operations: Union $A \cup B$; Intersection $A \cap B$; Difference $A \setminus B$; Complement $A^c$; Cartesian product $A \times B = \{(a, b) : a \in A, b \in B\}$.

Example 1.1
Set operations

Let $A = \{1, 2, 3, 4\}$, $B = \{3, 4, 5, 6\}$, universe $U = \{1, 2, \ldots, 10\}$. Find $A \cup B$, $A \cap B$, $A \setminus B$, $A^c$, $|A \times B|$.

$A \cup B = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6\}$.
$A \cap B = \{3, 4\}$.
$A \setminus B = \{1, 2\}$ (elements in $A$ but not in $B$).
$A^c = U \setminus A = \{5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10\}$.
$|A \times B| = |A| \cdot |B| = 4 \cdot 4 = 16$ ordered pairs.
Example 1.2 — economic application
Budget set as a set

A consumer with income $M = 100$, prices $p_x = 5$, $p_y = 10$. Describe the budget set $B$ as a set.

$B = \{(x, y) \in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : 5x + 10y \leq 100\}$.
Equivalently: $B = \{(x, y) : x \geq 0, y \geq 0, x + 2y \leq 20\}$. A triangle in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with vertices $(0, 0)$, $(20, 0)$, $(0, 10)$.

1.2 Number systems and $\mathbb{R}^n$

Hierarchy

$\mathbb{N} \subset \mathbb{Z} \subset \mathbb{Q} \subset \mathbb{R} \subset \mathbb{C}$.

  • $\mathbb{N}$: natural numbers $\{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$.
  • $\mathbb{Z}$: integers $\{\ldots, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$.
  • $\mathbb{Q}$: rationals $\{p/q : p, q \in \mathbb{Z}, q \neq 0\}$.
  • $\mathbb{R}$: reals — fills the gaps left by $\mathbb{Q}$ (irrationals like $\sqrt 2$, $\pi$, $e$).
  • $\mathbb{R}^n$: $n$-dimensional Euclidean space $\{(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n) : x_i \in \mathbb{R}\}$.
Properties of $\mathbb{R}^n$ used in economics
  • Vector space: closed under addition and scalar multiplication.Vector space: जोड र scalar गुणन।
  • Inner product: $\langle x, y \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i$.Inner product: $\sum x_i y_i$।
  • Euclidean norm: $\|x\| = \sqrt{\sum x_i^2}$.Norm: $\|x\| = \sqrt{\sum x_i^2}$।
  • Distance: $d(x, y) = \|x - y\|$.दूरी: $d(x, y) = \|x - y\|$।
  • Completeness: every Cauchy sequence converges within $\mathbb{R}^n$ — this is what makes $\mathbb{R}^n$ "fill all gaps."Completeness: Cauchy sequence ले $\mathbb{R}^n$ भित्रै converge।
Example 1.3
Vector operations

Let $x = (1, 2, 3)$, $y = (4, 0, -1)$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Compute $x + y$, $\langle x, y \rangle$, $\|x\|$, $d(x, y)$.

$x + y = (5, 2, 2)$.
$\langle x, y \rangle = 1 \cdot 4 + 2 \cdot 0 + 3 \cdot (-1) = 4 + 0 - 3 = 1$.
$\|x\| = \sqrt{1 + 4 + 9} = \sqrt{14} \approx 3.742$.
$x - y = (-3, 2, 4)$. $d(x, y) = \sqrt{9 + 4 + 16} = \sqrt{29} \approx 5.385$.

1.3 Functions

Definitions

A function $f: X \to Y$ assigns each $x \in X$ exactly one $y \in Y$. Notation: $y = f(x)$.

  • Domain $\text{Dom}(f) = X$. Codomain $= Y$. Range = $\{f(x) : x \in X\} \subseteq Y$.
  • Injective (one-to-one): $f(x_1) = f(x_2) \Rightarrow x_1 = x_2$.
  • Surjective (onto): Range = Codomain.
  • Bijective: both injective and surjective. Then $f^{-1}$ exists.
  • Composite: $(g \circ f)(x) = g(f(x))$.
Example 1.4
Classifying functions

Classify each function:

$f_1: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, $f_1(x) = x^2$. Not injective (since $f_1(2) = f_1(-2) = 4$). Not surjective (negative numbers are not in range).
$f_2: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, $f_2(x) = 2x + 3$. Injective (different inputs give different outputs). Surjective (any real $y$ comes from $x = (y-3)/2$). Hence bijective; inverse $f_2^{-1}(y) = (y-3)/2$.
$f_3: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}_+$, $f_3(x) = e^x$. Injective; surjective onto $\mathbb{R}_+$; bijective; inverse is $\ln$.
Example 1.5 — economic application
Demand correspondence is NOT a function

For $U = \min(x, y)$ at $p_x = p_y$, the consumer is indifferent between $(1, 1)$, $(2, 2)$, etc. — the demand "function" returns a set at each price. Strictly it is a correspondence, not a function. For the standard Marshallian demand $x^M(p, M) = \alpha M / p_x$ (Cobb-Douglas), it is a function.

1.4 Sequences and series

Sequence convergence

$\{x_n\}$ converges to $L$, written $\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n = L$, if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $N$ such that $n \geq N \Rightarrow |x_n - L| < \varepsilon$.

A sequence is bounded if $\exists M$ with $|x_n| \leq M$ for all $n$. Monotone if non-decreasing or non-increasing throughout.

Monotone Convergence Theorem: every bounded monotone sequence converges (in $\mathbb{R}$).

Example 1.6
Limit of a sequence

Find $\lim_{n \to \infty} \dfrac{3n + 1}{2n - 5}$.

Divide numerator and denominator by $n$: $\dfrac{3 + 1/n}{2 - 5/n}$.
As $n \to \infty$, $1/n \to 0$ and $5/n \to 0$.
Limit = $\dfrac{3 + 0}{2 - 0} = \dfrac{3}{2}$.
$\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n = 1.5$.
Geometric series

$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty r^n = 1 + r + r^2 + \cdots = \frac{1}{1 - r}, \quad |r| < 1.$$

If $|r| \geq 1$, the series diverges. This is the workhorse formula behind the Keynesian multiplier ($1/(1-b)$ where $b$ is MPC).

Example 1.7 — Keynesian multiplier from geometric series
Multiplier derivation

Show that the simple investment multiplier is $1/(1-b)$ using a geometric series, given MPC $b = 0.75$.

Initial injection $\Delta I = 1$ produces income of 1 for some agent.
That agent spends $b = 0.75$ as consumption, becoming income for someone else.
Sequence of "rounds": $1, b, b^2, b^3, \ldots$
Total income generated $= \sum_{n=0}^\infty b^n = \dfrac{1}{1 - b} = \dfrac{1}{0.25} = 4$.
Multiplier = 4. A Re 1 of $\Delta I$ raises $Y$ by Rs 4.
Example 1.8
Present value as a geometric series

Find the present value of a perpetuity that pays $C$ rupees at the end of every year, at discount rate $r$.

PV $= \dfrac{C}{1+r} + \dfrac{C}{(1+r)^2} + \dfrac{C}{(1+r)^3} + \cdots$
$= \dfrac{C}{1+r} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left(\dfrac{1}{1+r}\right)^n = \dfrac{C}{1+r} \cdot \dfrac{1}{1 - 1/(1+r)} = \dfrac{C}{1+r} \cdot \dfrac{1+r}{r} = \dfrac{C}{r}$.
PV $= C/r$. So a perpetuity of Rs 100/year at 5% is worth Rs 2000 today.

1.5 Limits and continuity of functions

$\varepsilon$-$\delta$ definition

$\lim_{x \to x_0} f(x) = L$ if for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is $\delta > 0$ such that $0 < |x - x_0| < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L| < \varepsilon$.

$f$ is continuous at $x_0$ iff $\lim_{x \to x_0} f(x) = f(x_0)$ (limit exists AND equals function value AND function is defined there).

Example 1.9
Continuity check

Is $f(x) = \dfrac{x^2 - 4}{x - 2}$ continuous at $x = 2$?

$f(2)$ is not defined (0/0). So not continuous as written.
But $\lim_{x \to 2} f(x) = \lim_{x \to 2} \dfrac{(x-2)(x+2)}{x-2} = \lim_{x \to 2} (x+2) = 4$.
If we extend $f$ by defining $f(2) := 4$, the extension is continuous everywhere. This is a "removable discontinuity."
Example 1.10 — important standard limits
Compute
  1. $\lim_{x \to 0} \dfrac{\sin x}{x}$
  2. $\lim_{x \to 0} \dfrac{e^x - 1}{x}$
  3. $\lim_{x \to \infty} \left(1 + \dfrac{1}{x}\right)^x$
  4. $\lim_{n \to \infty} \left(1 + \dfrac{r}{n}\right)^n$
(1) Standard limit = $1$ (use L'Hôpital or Taylor).
(2) Standard = $1$.
(3) = $e \approx 2.71828$ (defining limit of $e$).
(4) = $e^r$ — continuous compounding from discrete. Lies behind continuous-time growth models.

Why continuity matters in economics: all of equilibrium-existence theory (Brouwer's, Kakutani's fixed-point theorems) requires continuity of best-response or excess-demand functions. Without continuity, equilibria can fail to exist.

Continuity किन महत्त्वपूर्ण: Brouwer, Kakutani जस्ता fixed-point theorem ले continuity मागे। यिनै theorem ले equilibrium अस्तित्व साबित गर्छन्।

References

  • Chiang & Wainwright, Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics, 4th ed., chs. 1-2 (set theory), 4 (linear models), 6 (limits, continuity). [Your folder]
  • Simon & Blume, Mathematics for Economists, chs. 12-13. [Your folder]
  • Bartle & Sherbert, Introduction to Real Analysis.
Unit II — Optimization · the biggest unitयुनिट II — Optimization · सबभन्दा ठूलो युनिट 12 hrs
The most-tested unit TU past papers (2014-2020) consistently include 2-3 optimization problems per exam: typically (i) one Lagrangian utility/cost-minimization numerical (Group A, 10 marks) and (ii) one short note on Kuhn-Tucker or convexity (Group B, 5-10 marks). Master the recipe with multiple worked examples below and you secure 15-20 marks here alone. Chiang chapters 7-13 cover everything in this unit. परीक्षाहरूमा सबभन्दा बढी सोधिने युनिट। तलका धेरै worked example ले पाठ्यपुस्तकमा भन्दा बढी सजिलोसँग कण्ठ हुनेछ। Chiang अध्याय ७-१३।

2.1 Derivatives — rules quick-reference

Basic rules
$$\frac{d}{dx}(x^n) = n x^{n-1}, \quad \frac{d}{dx}(e^x) = e^x, \quad \frac{d}{dx}(\ln x) = \frac{1}{x}$$ $$\text{Product: } (fg)' = f'g + fg'$$ $$\text{Quotient: } \left(\frac{f}{g}\right)' = \frac{f'g - fg'}{g^2}$$ $$\text{Chain: } \frac{d}{dx}f(g(x)) = f'(g(x)) \cdot g'(x)$$
Example 2.1 — combined rules

Differentiate $f(x) = (x^2 + 1)^3 \cdot \ln x$.

Product rule: $f' = [(x^2+1)^3]' \cdot \ln x + (x^2+1)^3 \cdot (\ln x)'$.
$(\ln x)' = 1/x$.
$[(x^2+1)^3]'$ uses chain rule = $3(x^2+1)^2 \cdot 2x = 6x(x^2+1)^2$.
So $f'(x) = 6x(x^2+1)^2 \ln x + \dfrac{(x^2+1)^3}{x}$.

2.2 Partial derivatives, total differential, chain rule

Partial derivative

For $z = f(x, y)$, holding $y$ constant and differentiating w.r.t. $x$:

$$f_x = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}, \quad f_y = \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$$

Total differential:

$$dz = f_x \, dx + f_y \, dy$$

This is the foundation of comparative statics.

Example 2.2 — partials

$z = x^2 y + 3xy^2 + y^3$. Find $z_x$, $z_y$, $z_{xx}$, $z_{yy}$, $z_{xy}$, $z_{yx}$.

$z_x = 2xy + 3y^2$ (treating $y$ as constant).
$z_y = x^2 + 6xy + 3y^2$.
$z_{xx} = 2y$.
$z_{yy} = 6x + 6y$.
$z_{xy} = (z_x)_y = 2x + 6y$.
$z_{yx} = (z_y)_x = 2x + 6y$.
$z_{xy} = z_{yx}$ — Young's theorem: mixed partials are equal if $f$ is $C^2$.
Example 2.3 — Cobb-Douglas partials and MRS

For $U = x^{0.4} y^{0.6}$, find $MU_x$, $MU_y$, and $MRS_{xy}$ at the bundle $(10, 5)$.

$MU_x = U_x = 0.4 \cdot x^{-0.6} y^{0.6} = 0.4 (y/x)^{0.6}$.
$MU_y = U_y = 0.6 \cdot x^{0.4} y^{-0.4} = 0.6 (x/y)^{0.4}$.
$MRS_{xy} = U_x / U_y = \dfrac{0.4 (y/x)^{0.6}}{0.6 (x/y)^{0.4}} = \dfrac{0.4}{0.6} \cdot \dfrac{y}{x} = \dfrac{2y}{3x}$.
At $(10, 5)$: $MRS = 2(5)/(3 \cdot 10) = 10/30 = 1/3$.
At $(10, 5)$, $MRS_{xy} = 1/3$.
Chain rule (multivariable)

If $z = f(x, y)$ and both $x = x(t)$, $y = y(t)$:

$$\frac{dz}{dt} = f_x \cdot \dot x + f_y \cdot \dot y.$$

If $z = f(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n)$ where each $x_i = x_i(t_1, \ldots, t_m)$:

$$\frac{\partial z}{\partial t_j} = \sum_{i=1}^n f_{x_i} \cdot \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial t_j}.$$
Example 2.4 — chain rule

$z = x^2 + 3xy + y^2$ with $x = e^t$, $y = t^2$. Find $dz/dt$ at $t = 1$.

$z_x = 2x + 3y$, $z_y = 3x + 2y$.
$\dot x = e^t$, $\dot y = 2t$.
$dz/dt = (2x + 3y) e^t + (3x + 2y)(2t)$.
At $t = 1$: $x = e$, $y = 1$. $z_x = 2e + 3$, $z_y = 3e + 2$. $\dot x = e$, $\dot y = 2$.
$dz/dt = (2e + 3) e + (3e + 2)(2) = 2e^2 + 3e + 6e + 4 = 2e^2 + 9e + 4$.
$\approx 2(7.389) + 9(2.718) + 4 = 14.78 + 24.46 + 4 \approx 43.24$.

2.3 Unconstrained optimization — FOC and SOC

Single-variable

To maximize/minimize $f(x)$:

  1. FOC: $f'(x^*) = 0$.
  2. SOC: $f''(x^*) < 0$ ⇒ local max; $f''(x^*) > 0$ ⇒ local min; $f''(x^*) = 0$ ⇒ inconclusive (use higher derivatives).
Example 2.5 — single-variable profit max

A firm has $TR = 100Q - 2Q^2$ and $TC = 10 + 20Q + Q^2$. Find profit-maximizing $Q$.

$\pi = TR - TC = 100Q - 2Q^2 - 10 - 20Q - Q^2 = -10 + 80Q - 3Q^2$.
FOC: $\pi' = 80 - 6Q = 0 \Rightarrow Q^* = 80/6 \approx 13.33$.
SOC: $\pi'' = -6 < 0$. ✓ Maximum.
Max profit: $\pi^* = -10 + 80(13.33) - 3(13.33)^2 = -10 + 1066.7 - 533.3 = 523.3$.
$Q^* \approx 13.33$, $\pi^* \approx 523.3$.
Multi-variable

For $f(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n)$:

  1. FOC: all partials zero: $\nabla f(x^*) = 0$.
  2. SOC: Hessian $H = [f_{ij}]$ must be (locally):
    • Negative definite (ND) for strict max: all leading principal minors alternate in sign starting negative.
    • Positive definite (PD) for strict min: all leading principal minors positive.

For 2 variables: $\det H = f_{11} f_{22} - f_{12}^2$. Then:

  • $f_{11} < 0$ AND $\det H > 0$ ⇒ max.
  • $f_{11} > 0$ AND $\det H > 0$ ⇒ min.
  • $\det H < 0$ ⇒ saddle point.
Example 2.6 — 2-variable unconstrained

Find and classify critical points of $f(x, y) = x^2 + xy + y^2 - 6x - 9y + 5$.

FOC: $f_x = 2x + y - 6 = 0$, $f_y = x + 2y - 9 = 0$.
From first: $y = 6 - 2x$. Sub: $x + 2(6 - 2x) - 9 = 0 \Rightarrow x - 4x + 3 = 0 \Rightarrow x = 1$.
So $y = 6 - 2 = 4$. Critical point: $(1, 4)$.
SOC: $f_{xx} = 2$, $f_{yy} = 2$, $f_{xy} = 1$. $\det H = 4 - 1 = 3 > 0$. $f_{xx} = 2 > 0$. ✓ Minimum.
$f(1, 4) = 1 + 4 + 16 - 6 - 36 + 5 = -16$.
Local (and global) min at $(1, 4)$, value $-16$.
Example 2.7 — multi-product profit max

A firm produces two goods. Prices $P_1 = 50$, $P_2 = 40$. Joint cost $C = Q_1^2 + 2 Q_1 Q_2 + 2 Q_2^2$. Find $Q_1^*, Q_2^*$.

$\pi = 50 Q_1 + 40 Q_2 - Q_1^2 - 2 Q_1 Q_2 - 2 Q_2^2$.
$\pi_{Q_1} = 50 - 2 Q_1 - 2 Q_2 = 0$ ⇒ $Q_1 + Q_2 = 25$.
$\pi_{Q_2} = 40 - 2 Q_1 - 4 Q_2 = 0$ ⇒ $Q_1 + 2 Q_2 = 20$.
Subtract: $Q_2 = -5$? Negative — not feasible. So at the boundary $Q_2 = 0$: $Q_1 = 25$. Check: $\pi_{Q_2}(25, 0) = 40 - 50 = -10 < 0$ ✓ corner solution.
Profit max at corner: $Q_1^* = 25$, $Q_2^* = 0$. (If the FOCs gave both positive values we'd take that interior solution.)

Level curves (contour plot) of $f(x, y) = -(x-3)^2 - (y-2)^2 + 10$. Innermost level corresponds to higher $f$. Max at center $(3, 2)$ where $\nabla f = 0$.Level curve plot। केन्द्र $(3,2)$ मा $f$ अधिकतम।

2.4 Convex sets and concave/convex functions

Convex set
$S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is convex if for all $x, y \in S$ and $\lambda \in [0, 1]$: $\lambda x + (1-\lambda) y \in S$. The line segment between any two points of $S$ stays in $S$.
Concave function
$f$ is concave on convex set $S$ if $f(\lambda x + (1-\lambda) y) \geq \lambda f(x) + (1-\lambda) f(y)$ for all $x, y \in S$, $\lambda \in [0, 1]$.
Convex function
Reverse inequality: $f(\lambda x + (1-\lambda) y) \leq \lambda f(x) + (1-\lambda) f(y)$.

Why economists love these:

  • Convex set as budget/feasible region + concave objective ⇒ any local max is global. No need to check other corners.Convex set + concave objective → local max global।
  • Production sets satisfying free disposal + non-increasing RTS are convex.Production set convex हुने (DRS + free disposal)।
  • Preferences with convex upper-contour sets (= quasi-concave utility) give well-behaved demand.Convex preference → well-behaved demand।
Example 2.8 — checking convexity (algebraic method)

Determine whether $S = \{(x, y) : x^2 + y^2 \leq 4\}$ (disk of radius 2) is convex.

Take any two points $A = (a_1, a_2)$ and $B = (b_1, b_2)$ in $S$.
$\|A\| \leq 2$, $\|B\| \leq 2$.
For $\lambda \in [0, 1]$: $\|\lambda A + (1-\lambda) B\| \leq \lambda \|A\| + (1-\lambda)\|B\| \leq \lambda \cdot 2 + (1-\lambda) \cdot 2 = 2$. (Triangle inequality.)
So $\lambda A + (1-\lambda) B \in S$. ✓ Convex.
Test for concavity via Hessian

A $C^2$ function $f$ on a convex open set is:

  • Concave iff Hessian $H(x)$ is negative semi-definite (NSD) for all $x$.
  • Strictly concave if $H(x)$ is negative definite (ND) for all $x$.
  • Likewise convex iff PSD, strictly convex if PD.

2-variable: $f$ concave iff $f_{xx} \leq 0$, $f_{yy} \leq 0$, $\det H \geq 0$ everywhere.

Example 2.9

Is $f(x, y) = -x^2 - 4xy - 5y^2$ concave?

$f_{xx} = -2$, $f_{yy} = -10$, $f_{xy} = -4$.
$\det H = (-2)(-10) - (-4)^2 = 20 - 16 = 4 > 0$.
$f_{xx} = -2 < 0$, $\det H > 0$ ⇒ Hessian negative definite.
$f$ is strictly concave.

2.5 Lagrange multipliers — constrained optimization

Method

To solve $\max f(x, y)$ subject to $g(x, y) = c$:

  1. Form the Lagrangian: $\mathcal{L}(x, y, \lambda) = f(x, y) + \lambda [c - g(x, y)]$.
  2. Set partials to zero:
    $$\mathcal{L}_x = 0, \quad \mathcal{L}_y = 0, \quad \mathcal{L}_\lambda = 0.$$
  3. Solve for $x^*, y^*, \lambda^*$.
  4. (Optional) Verify SOC via bordered Hessian.

Economic interpretation of $\lambda^*$: shadow price of the constraint. $\dfrac{df^*}{dc} = \lambda^*$ (envelope theorem).

Example 2.10 — utility max (TU 2014 GA Q1 style)

Maximize $U(x_1, x_2) = x_1^{0.5} x_2^{0.5}$ subject to $10 x_1 + 50 x_2 = 100$.

$\mathcal{L} = x_1^{0.5} x_2^{0.5} + \lambda (100 - 10 x_1 - 50 x_2)$.
$\mathcal{L}_{x_1} = 0.5 x_1^{-0.5} x_2^{0.5} - 10\lambda = 0$ ⇒ $0.5 \sqrt{x_2/x_1} = 10\lambda$ ... (i)
$\mathcal{L}_{x_2} = 0.5 x_1^{0.5} x_2^{-0.5} - 50\lambda = 0$ ⇒ $0.5 \sqrt{x_1/x_2} = 50\lambda$ ... (ii)
Divide (i) by (ii): $\dfrac{\sqrt{x_2/x_1}}{\sqrt{x_1/x_2}} = \dfrac{10}{50} = 0.2 \Rightarrow \dfrac{x_2}{x_1} = 0.2 \Rightarrow x_2 = 0.2 x_1$.
Plug into budget: $10 x_1 + 50 (0.2 x_1) = 100 \Rightarrow 10 x_1 + 10 x_1 = 100 \Rightarrow x_1^* = 5$.
Then $x_2^* = 1$.
$U^* = 5^{0.5} \cdot 1^{0.5} = \sqrt{5} \approx 2.236$.
$\lambda^*$ from (i): $0.5 \sqrt{1/5} = 10 \lambda^* \Rightarrow \lambda^* = 0.05 / \sqrt{5} \approx 0.0224$.
$x_1^* = 5$, $x_2^* = 1$, $U^* \approx 2.236$, $\lambda^* \approx 0.0224$. The shadow price says: relaxing budget by Re 1 raises $U$ by ~0.022 utils.
Example 2.11 — cost minimization

Minimize $C = wL + rK = 4L + K$ subject to $Q = L^{0.5} K^{0.5} = 10$.

$\mathcal{L} = 4L + K + \mu(10 - L^{0.5} K^{0.5})$.
$\mathcal{L}_L = 4 - 0.5 \mu L^{-0.5} K^{0.5} = 0$ ⇒ $4 = 0.5 \mu \sqrt{K/L}$ ⇒ $\sqrt{K/L} = 8/\mu$ ... (i)
$\mathcal{L}_K = 1 - 0.5 \mu L^{0.5} K^{-0.5} = 0$ ⇒ $1 = 0.5 \mu \sqrt{L/K}$ ⇒ $\sqrt{L/K} = 2/\mu$ ... (ii)
Multiply (i) and (ii): $1 = 16/\mu^2 \Rightarrow \mu = 4$.
From (ii): $\sqrt{L/K} = 0.5 \Rightarrow L = 0.25 K \Rightarrow K = 4L$.
Constraint: $L^{0.5} (4L)^{0.5} = 2L = 10 \Rightarrow L^* = 5$, $K^* = 20$.
$C^* = 4(5) + 20 = 40$.
$L^* = 5$, $K^* = 20$, $C^* = 40$, $\mu^* = 4$. Each extra unit of $Q$ costs an additional 4.
Example 2.12 — TU-style numerical with $U = x_1 x_2^2$

(2014-style) Find optimum bundle for $U = x_1 x_2^2$, $p_1 = 10$, $p_2 = 50$, $M = 100$.

$\mathcal{L} = x_1 x_2^2 + \lambda(100 - 10 x_1 - 50 x_2)$.
$\mathcal{L}_{x_1} = x_2^2 - 10 \lambda = 0$ ⇒ $\lambda = x_2^2 / 10$.
$\mathcal{L}_{x_2} = 2 x_1 x_2 - 50 \lambda = 0$ ⇒ $\lambda = x_1 x_2 / 25$.
Equate: $x_2^2 / 10 = x_1 x_2 / 25 \Rightarrow 25 x_2 = 10 x_1 \Rightarrow x_1 = 2.5 x_2$.
Budget: $10(2.5 x_2) + 50 x_2 = 100 \Rightarrow 25 x_2 + 50 x_2 = 100 \Rightarrow 75 x_2 = 100 \Rightarrow x_2^* = 4/3$.
$x_1^* = 2.5 \cdot 4/3 = 10/3$.
Verify with Cobb-Douglas formula: total exponent $1 + 2 = 3$; $\alpha_1 = 1/3$, $\alpha_2 = 2/3$. So $x_1^* = (1/3)(100)/10 = 10/3$ ✓ and $x_2^* = (2/3)(100)/50 = 4/3$ ✓.
$x_1^* = 10/3 \approx 3.33$, $x_2^* = 4/3 \approx 1.33$, $U^* = (10/3)(4/3)^2 = 160/27 \approx 5.93$.
Bordered Hessian SOC
SOC for 2-variable constrained max

Define the bordered Hessian:

$$\bar H = \begin{vmatrix} 0 & g_1 & g_2 \\ g_1 & \mathcal{L}_{11} & \mathcal{L}_{12} \\ g_2 & \mathcal{L}_{21} & \mathcal{L}_{22} \end{vmatrix}$$

where $g_i = \partial g/\partial x_i$ at the optimum. Then:

  • $\det \bar H > 0$ ⇒ constrained maximum.
  • $\det \bar H < 0$ ⇒ constrained minimum.

2.6 Kuhn-Tucker conditions — inequality constraints

Setup

Maximize $f(x)$ subject to $g_i(x) \leq b_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, m$ and $x \geq 0$.

Form Lagrangian $\mathcal{L} = f(x) + \sum_i \lambda_i [b_i - g_i(x)]$.

KKT conditions (necessary; sufficient under constraint qualifications + concave $f$, convex $g$):

$$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_j} \leq 0, \quad x_j \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial x_j} = 0, \quad x_j \geq 0$$ $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda_i} \geq 0, \quad \lambda_i \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \lambda_i} = 0, \quad \lambda_i \geq 0$$

Complementary slackness: either a constraint is binding ($g_i(x^*) = b_i$, $\lambda_i > 0$) or it is slack ($g_i(x^*) < b_i$, $\lambda_i = 0$).

Example 2.13 — Kuhn-Tucker

Maximize $f = x_1 + x_2$ subject to $x_1^2 + x_2^2 \leq 1$, $x_1, x_2 \geq 0$.

$\mathcal{L} = x_1 + x_2 + \lambda(1 - x_1^2 - x_2^2)$.
KKT: $\mathcal{L}_{x_1} = 1 - 2\lambda x_1 \leq 0$, with $x_1 (1 - 2\lambda x_1) = 0$.
Similarly for $x_2$: $1 - 2\lambda x_2 \leq 0$, $x_2 (1 - 2\lambda x_2) = 0$.
If $x_1 > 0$: $\lambda x_1 = 1/2$. Similarly if $x_2 > 0$: $\lambda x_2 = 1/2$.
Both positive ⇒ $x_1 = x_2$. Constraint binding: $2 x_1^2 = 1 \Rightarrow x_1^* = x_2^* = 1/\sqrt{2}$.
$\lambda^* = 1 / (2 x_1) = \sqrt{2}/2 \approx 0.707 > 0$ ✓.
$x_1^* = x_2^* = 1/\sqrt 2 \approx 0.707$, $f^* = \sqrt 2 \approx 1.414$.
Example 2.14 — corner solution with KKT

Maximize $f = 2 x_1 + x_2$ subject to $x_1 + x_2 \leq 4$, $x_1 \leq 2$, $x_1, x_2 \geq 0$.

$\mathcal{L} = 2 x_1 + x_2 + \lambda_1 (4 - x_1 - x_2) + \lambda_2 (2 - x_1)$.
$\mathcal{L}_{x_1} = 2 - \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 \leq 0$.
$\mathcal{L}_{x_2} = 1 - \lambda_1 \leq 0$.
Try both constraints binding: $x_1 = 2$, $x_1 + x_2 = 4 \Rightarrow x_2 = 2$.
From $\mathcal{L}_{x_2}$ binding: $\lambda_1 = 1$. From $\mathcal{L}_{x_1}$: $\lambda_2 = 2 - 1 = 1 \geq 0$. ✓ All satisfied.
$x_1^* = 2$, $x_2^* = 2$, $f^* = 4 + 2 = 6$. Both constraints binding.

2.7 Envelope theorem & comparative statics

Envelope theorem (unconstrained)

If $x^*(a)$ solves $\max_x f(x, a)$, then

$$\frac{df^*}{da} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial a} \bigg|_{x = x^*(a)}.$$

Only the direct effect of $a$ on $f$ matters; the indirect effect via $x^*$ is zero at the optimum (because of FOC).

Envelope theorem (constrained)

If $\max f(x; a)$ s.t. $g(x; a) = b$ has Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$:

$$\frac{df^*}{da} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial a}\bigg|_{x^*, \lambda^*}.$$
Example 2.15 — envelope for $\lambda$

Verify $df^*/dc = \lambda^*$ for Example 2.10 ($U = \sqrt{x_1 x_2}$, $p_1 x_1 + p_2 x_2 = c$).

From Example 2.10: $x_1^* = c/(2 p_1)$, $x_2^* = c/(2 p_2)$, $U^* = \dfrac{c}{2\sqrt{p_1 p_2}}$.
$dU^*/dc = \dfrac{1}{2\sqrt{p_1 p_2}}$.
With $p_1 = 10$, $p_2 = 50$: $dU^*/dc = 1/(2\sqrt{500}) = 1/(2 \cdot 22.36) \approx 0.0224$. ✓ matches $\lambda^*$.
Maximize $U = x^{1/3} y^{2/3}$ s.t. $5x + 10y = 60$. The optimum is:
Cobb-Douglas rule: $x^* = \alpha M/p_x = (1/3)(60)/5 = 4$; $y^* = (2/3)(60)/10 = 4$.

References

  • Chiang & Wainwright, chs. 7-13 (differentiation, partial derivatives, optimization, Lagrange, Kuhn-Tucker). [Your folder]
  • Simon & Blume, chs. 17-19.
  • Sundaram, A First Course in Optimization Theory.
Unit III — Differential Equationsयुनिट III — Differential Equations 9 hrs
Continuous-time dynamics A differential equation (DE) is an equation involving an unknown function $y(t)$ and its derivatives $y', y'', \ldots$. Solving it = finding $y(t)$. DEs model continuous-time economic dynamics — growth, asset prices, accumulation. Chiang chapters 15-16. DE मा अज्ञात function $y(t)$ र त्यसका derivative। हल = $y(t)$ निकाल्ने। Continuous-time dynamics। Chiang १५-१६।

3.1 First-order linear DE — constant coefficient, constant term

Form and solution
$$\frac{dy}{dt} + a y = b, \quad a, b \text{ constants.}$$

General solution = complementary function (CF) + particular integral (PI):

$$y(t) = \underbrace{A e^{-at}}_{\text{CF}} + \underbrace{\frac{b}{a}}_{\text{PI / steady state}}.$$

If initial condition $y(0) = y_0$, then $A = y_0 - b/a$:

$$\boxed{ y(t) = \left( y_0 - \frac{b}{a} \right) e^{-at} + \frac{b}{a}. }$$

Stability: $a > 0$ ⇒ $e^{-at} \to 0$, so $y(t) \to b/a$ as $t \to \infty$ — stable. $a < 0$ ⇒ diverges — unstable.

Example 3.1

Solve $\dot y + 3y = 12$ with $y(0) = 6$.

Steady state: $y^* = b/a = 12/3 = 4$.
General: $y(t) = (y_0 - 4) e^{-3t} + 4 = (6 - 4) e^{-3t} + 4 = 2 e^{-3t} + 4$.
Check at $t = 0$: $y(0) = 2 + 4 = 6$ ✓.
As $t \to \infty$: $y \to 4$ (stable since $a = 3 > 0$).
$y(t) = 2 e^{-3t} + 4$.

Phase line: $dy/dt = ay + b$. Steady state $y^* = -b/a$. When $a < 0$, arrows point toward $y^*$ (stable); $a > 0$ unstable. Note: this widget uses the form $\dot y = ay + b$ directly. Standard form $\dot y + ay = b$ would give steady state $b/a$.Phase line: $a < 0$ stable, $a > 0$ unstable।

Example 3.2 — Domar growth model

Capital $K$ produces output $Y = K/v$ (where $v$ = ICOR, capital-output ratio). Investment is the change in capital: $\dot K = sY = sK/v$. Find $K(t)$ given $K(0) = K_0$.

Rearrange: $\dot K - (s/v) K = 0$.
In form $\dot y + a y = b$: $a = -s/v$, $b = 0$.
Solution: $K(t) = K_0 e^{(s/v) t}$.
Output also grows: $Y(t) = K(t)/v = (K_0/v) e^{(s/v) t}$.
Domar's warranted rate of growth: $\hat Y = s/v$. If savings rate $s = 20\%$, ICOR $v = 4$, warranted growth $= 5\%$/year.
Example 3.3 — Walrasian price adjustment

Demand $D(P) = 20 - 2P$, Supply $S(P) = 4P - 4$. Price adjusts by $\dot P = k[D(P) - S(P)]$ with $k = 0.5$. Find $P(t)$ given $P(0) = 2$.

$D - S = (20 - 2P) - (4P - 4) = 24 - 6P$.
$\dot P = 0.5 (24 - 6P) = 12 - 3P \Rightarrow \dot P + 3P = 12$.
$P^* = 12/3 = 4$. ✓ (Note: $D(4) = 12$, $S(4) = 12$ — market clears.)
$P(t) = (2 - 4) e^{-3t} + 4 = -2 e^{-3t} + 4$.
$P(t) \to 4$ exponentially. Half-life $= \ln 2 / 3 \approx 0.23$ — price reaches halfway in ~14 weeks (with $t$ in months).

3.2 First-order DE with variable coefficient

Integrating factor method

Form: $\dot y + a(t) y = b(t)$.

Multiply both sides by integrating factor $\mu(t) = e^{\int a(t) dt}$:

$$\frac{d}{dt}[\mu(t) y(t)] = \mu(t) b(t).$$

Integrate: $\mu y = \int \mu b \, dt + C$, hence

$$y(t) = \frac{1}{\mu(t)} \left[ \int \mu(t) b(t) dt + C \right].$$
Example 3.4 — integrating factor

Solve $\dot y + 2t y = t$.

$\mu(t) = e^{\int 2t \, dt} = e^{t^2}$.
$(e^{t^2} y)' = t e^{t^2}$.
$e^{t^2} y = \int t e^{t^2} dt = \tfrac{1}{2} e^{t^2} + C$.
$y(t) = \tfrac{1}{2} + C e^{-t^2}$.
$y(t) = 1/2 + C e^{-t^2}$. As $t \to \infty$, $y \to 1/2$.

3.3 Second-order linear DE — constant coefficients, constant term

Form and solution
$$\ddot y + a_1 \dot y + a_2 y = b.$$

Particular integral: $y_p = b/a_2$ (when $a_2 \neq 0$).

Complementary function: solve the homogeneous version $\ddot y + a_1 \dot y + a_2 y = 0$ via characteristic equation:

$$r^2 + a_1 r + a_2 = 0, \quad r_{1,2} = \frac{-a_1 \pm \sqrt{a_1^2 - 4 a_2}}{2}.$$

Three cases:

  • Case 1: distinct real roots $r_1 \neq r_2$: $$y_c = A_1 e^{r_1 t} + A_2 e^{r_2 t}.$$
  • Case 2: repeated real root $r_1 = r_2 = r$: $$y_c = (A_1 + A_2 t) e^{r t}.$$
  • Case 3: complex roots $r = \alpha \pm i\beta$: $$y_c = e^{\alpha t} (A_1 \cos \beta t + A_2 \sin \beta t).$$ Oscillatory; damped if $\alpha < 0$, explosive if $\alpha > 0$.
Example 3.5 — distinct real roots

Solve $\ddot y + 5 \dot y + 6 y = 12$ with $y(0) = 4$, $\dot y(0) = -1$.

Particular: $y_p = 12/6 = 2$.
Characteristic: $r^2 + 5r + 6 = 0 \Rightarrow (r+2)(r+3) = 0 \Rightarrow r_1 = -2, r_2 = -3$.
CF: $y_c = A_1 e^{-2t} + A_2 e^{-3t}$.
General: $y(t) = A_1 e^{-2t} + A_2 e^{-3t} + 2$.
$y(0) = A_1 + A_2 + 2 = 4 \Rightarrow A_1 + A_2 = 2$.
$\dot y(t) = -2 A_1 e^{-2t} - 3 A_2 e^{-3t}$. $\dot y(0) = -2 A_1 - 3 A_2 = -1$.
Solve: from first, $A_1 = 2 - A_2$. Sub: $-2(2 - A_2) - 3 A_2 = -1 \Rightarrow -4 + 2 A_2 - 3 A_2 = -1 \Rightarrow -A_2 = 3 \Rightarrow A_2 = -3$. So $A_1 = 5$.
$y(t) = 5 e^{-2t} - 3 e^{-3t} + 2$. Both roots negative ⇒ converges to steady state 2.
Example 3.6 — complex roots (oscillation)

Solve $\ddot y + 2 \dot y + 5 y = 10$.

$y_p = 10/5 = 2$.
Characteristic: $r^2 + 2r + 5 = 0$; discriminant $4 - 20 = -16 < 0$.
$r = \dfrac{-2 \pm 4i}{2} = -1 \pm 2i$. So $\alpha = -1$, $\beta = 2$.
$y_c = e^{-t}(A_1 \cos 2t + A_2 \sin 2t)$.
$y(t) = e^{-t}(A_1 \cos 2t + A_2 \sin 2t) + 2$. Damped oscillation ($\alpha = -1 < 0$ → stable spiral toward $y^* = 2$).

3.4 Stability analysis of dynamic systems

RootsTime pathStability
Real, both negativeMonotone decayStable node
Real, both positiveMonotone divergenceUnstable node
Real, opposite signsSaddle pathSaddle (stable only along one manifold)
Complex, $\alpha < 0$Damped oscillationStable spiral
Complex, $\alpha > 0$Explosive oscillationUnstable spiral
Pure imaginary, $\alpha = 0$Closed orbitCenter (neutrally stable)

Routh-Hurwitz criterion for second-order $\ddot y + a_1 \dot y + a_2 y = 0$: stable iff $a_1 > 0$ AND $a_2 > 0$. Quick test.

Routh-Hurwitz: $a_1 > 0$ र $a_2 > 0$ भए stable।

References

  • Chiang & Wainwright, chs. 15-16. Your folder has the dedicated Diffrential Equestions Chiang A. … 4ed_2.pdf.
  • Gandolfo, Economic Dynamics.
Unit IV — Difference Equationsयुनिट IV — Difference Equations 9 hrs
Discrete-time dynamics Same content as differential equations, but for discrete time periods $t = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$ A difference equation relates $y_t$, $y_{t+1}$, $y_{t+2}$, etc. Used for cobweb models, multiplier-accelerator business cycles, asset pricing iterations. Chiang chapters 17-18. Differential equation को discrete-time समकक्ष। Cobweb, multiplier-accelerator, asset pricing मा प्रयोग। Chiang १७-१८।

4.1 First-order linear difference equation — constant coefficient

Form and solution
$$y_{t+1} = a y_t + b.$$

Steady state $y^* = b/(1-a)$ (when $a \neq 1$).

General solution:

$$\boxed{ y_t = \left( y_0 - \frac{b}{1 - a} \right) a^t + \frac{b}{1 - a}. }$$

Stability conditions:

  • $0 < a < 1$: monotone convergence to $y^*$ — stable.
  • $-1 < a < 0$: oscillating convergence — stable.
  • $a > 1$: monotone divergence — unstable.
  • $a < -1$: explosive oscillation — unstable.
  • $a = 1$: uniform path (no steady state if $b \neq 0$).
  • $a = -1$: bounded oscillation around average (neutrally stable).

In short: stable iff $|a| < 1$.

Example 4.1 — convergent

Solve $y_{t+1} = 0.5 y_t + 10$ with $y_0 = 30$. Compute $y_5$ and $\lim_{t \to \infty} y_t$.

$y^* = 10/(1 - 0.5) = 20$.
$y_t = (30 - 20)(0.5)^t + 20 = 10 \cdot (0.5)^t + 20$.
$y_5 = 10 \cdot 0.03125 + 20 = 0.3125 + 20 = 20.3125$.
$\lim_{t \to \infty} y_t = 20$ (since $|a| = 0.5 < 1$, stable).
Time path: $y_0 = 30, y_1 = 25, y_2 = 22.5, y_3 = 21.25, y_4 = 20.625, y_5 = 20.3125 \ldots \to 20$.
Example 4.2 — oscillating

Solve $y_{t+1} = -0.8 y_t + 5$ with $y_0 = 0$.

$y^* = 5/(1 - (-0.8)) = 5/1.8 \approx 2.78$.
$y_t = (0 - 2.78)(-0.8)^t + 2.78 = -2.78 (-0.8)^t + 2.78$.
$y_1 = 0.8 \cdot 2.78 \cdot (-1)^1 + 2.78$? Let's just iterate: $y_1 = 0 + 5 = 5$. $y_2 = -0.8(5) + 5 = 1$. $y_3 = -0.8(1) + 5 = 4.2$. $y_4 = -0.8(4.2) + 5 = 1.64$. $y_5 = 3.69$. Oscillates around $\sim 2.78$ with shrinking amplitude.
Oscillating convergence to $\sim 2.78$.

Time path of $y_{t+1} = a y_t + b$. Drag $a$ through different ranges to see convergent, oscillating, and explosive cases.$y_{t+1} = a y_t + b$ को time path।

Example 4.3 — Cobweb model

Demand: $Q^d_t = 9 - P_t$. Supply with one-period lag: $Q^s_t = -1 + 2 P_{t-1}$. Find the price difference equation and study stability.

Market clearing each period: $Q^d_t = Q^s_t$.
$9 - P_t = -1 + 2 P_{t-1} \Rightarrow P_t = 10 - 2 P_{t-1}$.
So $a = -2$, $b = 10$. $P^* = 10 / (1 - (-2)) = 10/3 \approx 3.33$.
$|a| = 2 > 1$ ⇒ explosive oscillation. Cobweb diverges.
Reason: $|d/b| = 2/1 = 2 > 1$ — supply curve is steeper than demand (in $(P, Q)$ space with $P$ on vertical axis). When supply less elastic than demand, cobweb is stable; otherwise unstable.
Diverging cobweb. (Famous agricultural example: hog cycle, corn-pig cycles.)

Cobweb iteration. $|d/b| < 1$: converges to $E$. $|d/b| = 1$: cycle. $|d/b| > 1$: explodes.Cobweb: $|d/b|$ अनुसार stability।

4.2 Second-order linear difference equation

Form and solution
$$y_{t+2} + a_1 y_{t+1} + a_2 y_t = b.$$

Particular: $y_p = b/(1 + a_1 + a_2)$ (when denominator $\neq 0$).

Characteristic: $r^2 + a_1 r + a_2 = 0$. Three cases parallel to differential case but use $r^t$ instead of $e^{rt}$:

  • Distinct real $r_1 \neq r_2$: $y_c = A_1 r_1^t + A_2 r_2^t$.
  • Repeated $r$: $y_c = (A_1 + A_2 t) r^t$.
  • Complex $r = \alpha \pm i\beta$: $y_c = R^t (A_1 \cos \theta t + A_2 \sin \theta t)$ where $R = \sqrt{\alpha^2 + \beta^2}$ and $\theta = \arctan(\beta/\alpha)$.

Stability: $|r_i| < 1$ for all roots.

Schur conditions (quick test for stability of $r^2 + a_1 r + a_2 = 0$):

$$1 + a_1 + a_2 > 0, \quad 1 - a_1 + a_2 > 0, \quad 1 - a_2 > 0 \;\Leftrightarrow\; |a_2| < 1.$$
Example 4.4 — Samuelson multiplier-accelerator (1939)

$Y_t = G_t + C_t + I_t$; $C_t = c Y_{t-1}$ ($c$ = MPC); $I_t = v (C_t - C_{t-1}) = vc(Y_{t-1} - Y_{t-2})$ ($v$ = accelerator). With $G_t = G$ constant, derive the difference equation for $Y_t$ and find stability with $c = 0.5$, $v = 1$.

$Y_t = G + c Y_{t-1} + vc Y_{t-1} - vc Y_{t-2} = G + c(1+v) Y_{t-1} - vc Y_{t-2}$.
Rearrange: $Y_t - c(1+v) Y_{t-1} + vc Y_{t-2} = G$.
Standard form $y_{t+2} + a_1 y_{t+1} + a_2 y_t = b$ requires shift: $a_1 = -c(1+v)$, $a_2 = vc$, $b = G$.
With $c = 0.5$, $v = 1$: $a_1 = -1$, $a_2 = 0.5$.
Characteristic: $r^2 - r + 0.5 = 0 \Rightarrow r = (1 \pm \sqrt{1 - 2})/2 = (1 \pm i)/2$.
$\alpha = 0.5$, $\beta = 0.5$. $R = \sqrt{0.25 + 0.25} = \sqrt{0.5} \approx 0.707$.
$|r| = R \approx 0.707 < 1$ ⇒ damped oscillation. Stable.
Schur check: $a_2 = 0.5 < 1$ ✓; $1 + a_1 + a_2 = 1 - 1 + 0.5 = 0.5 > 0$ ✓; $1 - a_1 + a_2 = 1 + 1 + 0.5 = 2.5 > 0$ ✓.
Damped business-cycle path. Steady state $Y^* = G/(1 + a_1 + a_2) = G/0.5 = 2G$.
Example 4.5

Solve $y_{t+2} - 5 y_{t+1} + 6 y_t = 12$ with $y_0 = 5$, $y_1 = 4$.

$y_p = 12/(1 - 5 + 6) = 12/2 = 6$.
Characteristic: $r^2 - 5r + 6 = 0 \Rightarrow (r-2)(r-3) = 0 \Rightarrow r_1 = 2, r_2 = 3$.
$y_c = A_1 (2)^t + A_2 (3)^t$.
$y_t = A_1 (2)^t + A_2 (3)^t + 6$.
$y_0 = A_1 + A_2 + 6 = 5 \Rightarrow A_1 + A_2 = -1$.
$y_1 = 2 A_1 + 3 A_2 + 6 = 4 \Rightarrow 2 A_1 + 3 A_2 = -2$.
From first: $A_1 = -1 - A_2$. Sub: $2(-1-A_2) + 3 A_2 = -2 \Rightarrow A_2 = 0$. So $A_1 = -1$.
$y_t = -(2)^t + 6$.
Both $|r| > 1$ ⇒ explodes. $y_2 = -4 + 6 = 2$, $y_3 = -8 + 6 = -2$, etc.
$y_t = -2^t + 6$, monotone explosion below.

References

  • Chiang & Wainwright, chs. 17-18. Your folder: Diffrence EquestionsChiang A. … 4ed.pdf.
  • Elaydi, Introduction to Difference Equations.
Unit V — Optimal Control Theoryयुनिट V — Optimal Control Theory 6 hrs
Dynamic optimization Optimization over time. Where unconstrained max chose a number, optimal control chooses a function $u(t)$. Powers all of modern macro: Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans growth, optimal monetary policy, optimal taxation. Chiang's separate book Elements of Dynamic Optimization is the standard text. समयमा optimization। संख्या होइन, function $u(t)$ रोज्ने। आधुनिक macro (Ramsey, optimal policy) को आधार।

5.1 The standard problem

Setup
$$\max_{u(t)} \int_0^T F(x(t), u(t), t) \, dt$$ $$\text{subject to } \dot x(t) = g(x(t), u(t), t), \quad x(0) = x_0, \quad x(T) \text{ free or fixed.}$$
  • $x(t)$: state variable — what the system is (capital, inventory, debt).
  • $u(t)$: control variable — what the decision-maker chooses (investment, consumption, hiring).
  • $F$: per-period objective (e.g., utility, profit).
  • $g$: equation of motion for state.
Pontryagin's Maximum Principle
Hamiltonian and necessary conditions

Define the Hamiltonian:

$$H(x, u, \mu, t) = F(x, u, t) + \mu(t) \, g(x, u, t).$$

$\mu(t)$ = co-state variable = shadow price of $x$ at time $t$.

Necessary conditions for optimum:

  1. $\dfrac{\partial H}{\partial u} = 0$ — Hamiltonian maximized w.r.t. control.
  2. $\dot \mu = -\dfrac{\partial H}{\partial x}$ — co-state equation of motion.
  3. $\dot x = \dfrac{\partial H}{\partial \mu} = g(x, u, t)$ — state equation (recovers original).
  4. Transversality: $\mu(T) = 0$ if $x(T)$ is free; or $x(T) = x_T$ if endpoint fixed.

5.2 Worked examples

Example 5.1 — basic

$\max \int_0^2 (u - u^2) \, dt$ s.t. $\dot x = u$, $x(0) = 1$, $x(2)$ free.

$H = (u - u^2) + \mu u = u + \mu u - u^2$.
$\partial H / \partial u = 1 + \mu - 2u = 0 \Rightarrow u^* = (1 + \mu)/2$.
$\dot \mu = -\partial H/\partial x = 0$ ⇒ $\mu$ constant. Call it $\mu_0$.
Transversality: $x(2)$ free ⇒ $\mu(2) = 0$ ⇒ $\mu_0 = 0$.
So $\mu = 0$ throughout, $u^* = 1/2$ throughout (a constant).
$x(t) = x(0) + \int_0^t u^* ds = 1 + t/2$. So $x(2) = 2$.
$u^*(t) = 1/2$, $x^*(t) = 1 + t/2$, $\mu(t) = 0$. Integrand value at optimum: $u - u^2 = 1/2 - 1/4 = 1/4$ per unit time; total $= 1/4 \cdot 2 = 1/2$.
Example 5.2 — Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans optimal saving

Household maximizes $\int_0^\infty u(c) e^{-\rho t} dt$ subject to $\dot k = f(k) - c - (n + \delta) k$, $k(0) = k_0$. Derive the Keynes-Ramsey rule.

Hamiltonian: $H = u(c) e^{-\rho t} + \mu [f(k) - c - (n+\delta) k]$.
FOC w.r.t. $c$: $u'(c) e^{-\rho t} = \mu$ ... (i)
Co-state: $\dot \mu = -\partial H/\partial k = -\mu [f'(k) - (n + \delta)]$ ... (ii)
Differentiate (i): $u''(c) \dot c e^{-\rho t} - \rho u'(c) e^{-\rho t} = \dot \mu$.
Divide by (i): $\dfrac{u''(c) \dot c}{u'(c)} - \rho = \dfrac{\dot \mu}{\mu} = -[f'(k) - (n+\delta)]$ (from ii).
Let $\sigma = -u''(c) c / u'(c)$ (coefficient of relative risk aversion):
$-\sigma \dot c / c - \rho = -f'(k) + n + \delta$
$\Rightarrow \boxed{ \dfrac{\dot c}{c} = \dfrac{f'(k) - \rho - n - \delta}{\sigma} }$.
Keynes-Ramsey rule: consumption grows when the after-discount marginal product of capital exceeds the time-preference rate. Higher $\sigma$ (more risk-averse / wants smoother consumption) ⇒ slower response.
Example 5.3 — optimal resource extraction (Hotelling)

Owner of a non-renewable resource with stock $S(0) = S_0$ chooses extraction rate $q(t)$ to maximize $\int_0^T p(t) q(t) e^{-rt} dt$ where $p$ is given. State equation $\dot S = -q$. Find Hotelling's rule.

$H = p \cdot q \cdot e^{-rt} + \mu (-q) = q (p e^{-rt} - \mu)$.
$H$ is linear in $q$ — bang-bang or interior with $p e^{-rt} = \mu$.
Assume interior: $\mu = p e^{-rt}$. Then $\dot \mu = -r p e^{-rt} + \dot p e^{-rt} = e^{-rt}(\dot p - rp)$.
Co-state: $\dot \mu = -\partial H/\partial S = 0$ (since $H$ doesn't depend on $S$).
So $\dot p - rp = 0$ ⇒ $\dot p / p = r$.
Hotelling's rule: the price of a non-renewable resource rises at the rate of interest along the optimal extraction path. Used to model oil, mineral pricing.

References

  • Chiang, A. C. Elements of Dynamic Optimization (1992). The standard text.
  • Kamien & Schwartz, Dynamic Optimization.
  • Class deck: Microeconomics I/Optimal Control Theory.pptx.
Unit VI — Linear Programmingयुनिट VI — Linear Programming 7 hrs
When LP applies If the objective and all constraints are linear, you have a linear program. Powerful for production planning, transportation, diet, portfolio, blending problems. Standard solution: graphical method for 2 variables; simplex method for any size. Chiang chapters 19-21. Objective र सबै constraint linear भए LP। उत्पादन, transportation, diet, portfolio मा। 2 चर graphical; ठूलोलाई simplex। Chiang १९-२१।

6.1 Standard form

Maximization form
$$\max Z = c_1 x_1 + c_2 x_2 + \cdots + c_n x_n$$ $$\text{s.t. } a_{i1} x_1 + a_{i2} x_2 + \cdots + a_{in} x_n \leq b_i, \quad i = 1, \ldots, m$$ $$x_j \geq 0, \quad j = 1, \ldots, n.$$

In matrix notation: $\max c^\top x$ s.t. $A x \leq b$, $x \geq 0$.

6.2 Graphical method (2-variable LP)

Example 6.1 — production planning

A firm produces $x_1$ tables and $x_2$ chairs. Profit per table = 3, per chair = 5. Wood constraint: $x_1 + 2 x_2 \leq 12$ (board-feet). Labour: $3 x_1 + 2 x_2 \leq 18$ (hours). Maximize $Z = 3 x_1 + 5 x_2$.

Method:

Plot constraints as boundary lines.
$x_1 + 2x_2 = 12$: intercepts $(12, 0)$ and $(0, 6)$.
$3 x_1 + 2 x_2 = 18$: intercepts $(6, 0)$ and $(0, 9)$.
Feasible region is the polygon bounded below by axes and above by both constraint lines. Vertices: $(0, 0)$, $(6, 0)$, intersection of both, $(0, 6)$.
Solve intersection: $x_1 + 2 x_2 = 12$ and $3 x_1 + 2 x_2 = 18$ ⇒ subtract: $-2 x_1 = -6 \Rightarrow x_1 = 3$, $x_2 = 4.5$. Vertex $(3, 4.5)$.
Evaluate $Z$ at each vertex:
(0, 0): $Z = 0$
(6, 0): $Z = 18$
(3, 4.5): $Z = 9 + 22.5 = 31.5$ ← max
(0, 6): $Z = 30$
Optimum at $(3, 4.5)$: 3 tables, 4.5 chairs, profit $Z^* = 31.5$.

Graphical solution of Example 6.1. Green shaded = feasible region. Vertices labelled with $Z$ value. Optimum at vertex $(3, 4.5)$ with $Z = 31.5$.Example 6.1 को graphical समाधान।

6.3 Simplex method (sketch)

Steps
  1. Convert inequality constraints to equalities by adding slack variables: $a_{i1} x_1 + \cdots + a_{in} x_n + s_i = b_i$.
  2. Initial basic feasible solution: all $x_j = 0$, $s_i = b_i$. $Z = 0$.
  3. Check optimality: look at the row-0 ("$Z$-row") coefficients of non-basic variables. If all $\geq 0$ (for max), we're done.
  4. Otherwise, choose entering variable: the non-basic with the most negative row-0 coefficient.
  5. Leaving variable: minimum-ratio test — for each row, compute $b_i / a_{i,\text{entering}}$ (only positive coefficients); the smallest ratio identifies the leaving variable.
  6. Pivot: row operations to make the entering variable basic.
  7. Repeat from step 3.
Example 6.2 — simplex on Example 6.1

Solve $\max Z = 3 x_1 + 5 x_2$ s.t. $x_1 + 2 x_2 + s_1 = 12$; $3 x_1 + 2 x_2 + s_2 = 18$; $x_1, x_2, s_1, s_2 \geq 0$.

Initial tableau (basic: $s_1, s_2$):

$$\begin{array}{c|ccccc|c} & x_1 & x_2 & s_1 & s_2 & & \text{RHS} \\ \hline Z & -3 & -5 & 0 & 0 & & 0 \\ s_1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 0 & & 12 \\ s_2 & 3 & 2 & 0 & 1 & & 18 \end{array}$$
Most negative row-0 = $-5$ at $x_2$. Entering: $x_2$.
Ratios: $12/2 = 6$, $18/2 = 9$. Min = 6 at $s_1$ row. Leaving: $s_1$.
Pivot. Divide row $s_1$ by 2:
$x_2$-row: $0.5 \; 1 \; 0.5 \; 0 \; | \; 6$.
Update row 0: row 0 + 5 × $x_2$-row: $-3 + 2.5 = -0.5$; $-5 + 5 = 0$; $0 + 2.5 = 2.5$; $0 + 0 = 0$; $0 + 30 = 30$.
Update $s_2$-row: $s_2$-row − 2 × $x_2$-row: $3 - 1 = 2$; $2 - 2 = 0$; $0 - 1 = -1$; $1 - 0 = 1$; $18 - 12 = 6$.

Second tableau (basic: $x_2, s_2$):

$$\begin{array}{c|ccccc|c} & x_1 & x_2 & s_1 & s_2 & & \text{RHS} \\ \hline Z & -0.5 & 0 & 2.5 & 0 & & 30 \\ x_2 & 0.5 & 1 & 0.5 & 0 & & 6 \\ s_2 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 1 & & 6 \end{array}$$
Most negative row-0 = $-0.5$ at $x_1$. Entering: $x_1$.
Ratios: $6/0.5 = 12$, $6/2 = 3$. Min = 3 at $s_2$ row. Leaving: $s_2$.
Pivot. Divide row $s_2$ by 2: $1 \; 0 \; -0.5 \; 0.5 \; | \; 3$.
Update row 0: row 0 + 0.5 × $x_1$-row: $0 \; 0 \; 2.25 \; 0.25 \; | \; 31.5$.
Update $x_2$-row: $x_2$-row − 0.5 × $x_1$-row: $0 \; 1 \; 0.75 \; -0.25 \; | \; 4.5$.

Third tableau (basic: $x_2, x_1$):

$$\begin{array}{c|ccccc|c} & x_1 & x_2 & s_1 & s_2 & & \text{RHS} \\ \hline Z & 0 & 0 & 2.25 & 0.25 & & 31.5 \\ x_2 & 0 & 1 & 0.75 & -0.25 & & 4.5 \\ x_1 & 1 & 0 & -0.5 & 0.5 & & 3 \end{array}$$
All row-0 coefficients $\geq 0$ ⇒ optimal.
$x_1^* = 3$, $x_2^* = 4.5$, $Z^* = 31.5$. Matches graphical solution.

6.4 Duality

Primal-dual pair
Primal (max)Dual (min)
$\max c^\top x$$\min b^\top y$
s.t. $A x \leq b$s.t. $A^\top y \geq c$
$x \geq 0$$y \geq 0$

Strong duality theorem: if either has an optimum, both do, and their values coincide.

Economic interpretation: dual variable $y_i$ = shadow price of primal resource $i$ — the increase in optimal $Z$ from relaxing $b_i$ by one unit.

Example 6.3 — dual of Example 6.1

Form the dual.

Primal: $\max 3 x_1 + 5 x_2$ s.t. $x_1 + 2 x_2 \leq 12$ (wood); $3 x_1 + 2 x_2 \leq 18$ (labour); $x_j \geq 0$.
Dual: $\min 12 y_1 + 18 y_2$ s.t. $y_1 + 3 y_2 \geq 3$ (table); $2 y_1 + 2 y_2 \geq 5$ (chair); $y_i \geq 0$.
From the final simplex tableau, $y_1^* = 2.25$ (shadow price of wood) and $y_2^* = 0.25$ (shadow price of labour). $W^* = 12(2.25) + 18(0.25) = 27 + 4.5 = 31.5 = Z^*$. ✓
Interpreting: an extra board-foot of wood adds 2.25 to profit; an extra labour hour adds 0.25 to profit. The firm would pay up to 2.25/board-foot for more wood.

Complementary slackness:

  • If primal constraint slack at optimum ⇒ corresponding dual variable zero.
  • If dual variable positive ⇒ corresponding primal constraint binding.

Complementary slackness: Primal constraint slack भए dual variable ०; dual positive भए primal binding।

6.5 More LP examples

Example 6.4 — diet problem (min cost)

Choose $x_1$ kg rice (Rs 50/kg) and $x_2$ kg lentils (Rs 80/kg) to minimize daily food cost while getting at least 2200 kcal and 50 g protein. Rice: 3000 kcal/kg, 70 g protein/kg. Lentils: 1200 kcal/kg, 220 g/kg.

$\min C = 50 x_1 + 80 x_2$ s.t. $3000 x_1 + 1200 x_2 \geq 2200$; $70 x_1 + 220 x_2 \geq 50$; $x_1, x_2 \geq 0$.
Constraints (in $x_2$ as function of $x_1$):
Calorie: $x_2 \geq (2200 - 3000 x_1)/1200 = 1.833 - 2.5 x_1$.
Protein: $x_2 \geq (50 - 70 x_1)/220 = 0.227 - 0.318 x_1$.
Feasible region: above both lines, in first quadrant. Vertices: where each constraint hits axis or where they intersect.
Intersection: $3000 x_1 + 1200 x_2 = 2200$ and $70 x_1 + 220 x_2 = 50$. Multiply first by 220, second by 1200: $660000 x_1 + 264000 x_2 = 484000$; $84000 x_1 + 264000 x_2 = 60000$. Subtract: $576000 x_1 = 424000 \Rightarrow x_1 \approx 0.736$. Then $x_2 \approx 1.833 - 2.5(0.736) = -0.007 \approx 0$. Solution at corner of feasibility.
Effectively the calorie constraint is binding at $x_2 = 0$: $x_1 = 2200/3000 = 0.733$ kg of rice; check protein: $70(0.733) = 51.3 \geq 50$ ✓.
$C = 50(0.733) = 36.67$.
$x_1^* \approx 0.733$ kg rice, $x_2^* = 0$ kg lentils, $C^* \approx$ Rs 36.67/day. (Real diet problems include vitamin constraints that force more variety.)
Example 6.5 — transport problem (sketch)

Two factories supply three markets. Capacities $S_1 = 100$, $S_2 = 150$. Demands $D_1 = 80$, $D_2 = 90$, $D_3 = 80$. Unit transport costs $c_{ij}$:

$$\begin{array}{c|ccc} & M_1 & M_2 & M_3 \\ \hline F_1 & 4 & 6 & 8 \\ F_2 & 5 & 4 & 7 \end{array}$$

Decision: $x_{ij}$ = amount shipped from factory $i$ to market $j$. Minimize $\sum c_{ij} x_{ij}$ s.t. $\sum_j x_{ij} \leq S_i$, $\sum_i x_{ij} \geq D_j$, $x_{ij} \geq 0$. Solved by specialized transportation algorithm (Northwest corner / least cost / Vogel's approximation, then MODI / stepping stone for optimality).

(Worked example in any operations-research text — see Hillier & Lieberman ch. 9. Beyond this course but appears in TU 2014-2017 papers.)

References

  • Chiang & Wainwright, chs. 19-21. [Your folder]
  • Hillier & Lieberman, Introduction to Operations Research.
  • Luenberger & Ye, Linear and Nonlinear Programming.
Past papers for this subject (56 questions, 2014-2020)यस विषयका विगत प्रश्न (५६ प्रश्न)