Skip to main content
typos
Source Link
VARulle
  • 7.5k
  • 10
  • 26

I know how to solve the two-good case with $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\}$$u(x) = \min\{x_1, x_2\}$, but the addition of $x3$$x_3$ confuses me.

Problem

Derive the demand function $x(p,w)$ from $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\} + x3$$u(x) = \min\{x_1, x_2\} + x_3$.

What I did so far

We assume that in optimum $x1 = x2$$x_1 = x_2$.

Set up the budget constraint $p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 = w$$p_1x_1 + p_2x_2 + p_3x_3 = w$.

Rewrite budget constraint as $(p1+p2)x1 + p3x3 = w$$(p_1+p_2)x_1 + p_3x_3 = w$ or $(p1+p2)x2 + p3x3 = w$$(p_1+p_2)x_2 + p_3x_3 = w$.

We can write $x1*$ or $x2* = \frac{w-p3x3}{p1+p2}$$x_1^*=x_2^* = \frac{w-p_3x_3}{p_1+p_2}$ and $x3* = \frac{w-(p1+p2)a}{p3}$$x_3^* = \frac{w-(p_1+p_2)x_1^*}{p_3}$.

Confusion

How to proceed? Can I still use a Lagrangian to solve this?

I know how to solve the two-good case with $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\}$, but the addition of $x3$ confuses me.

Problem

Derive the demand function $x(p,w)$ from $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\} + x3$

What I did so far

We assume that in optimum $x1 = x2$.

Set up the budget constraint $p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 = w$

Rewrite budget constraint as $(p1+p2)x1 + p3x3 = w$ or $(p1+p2)x2 + p3x3 = w$

We can write $x1*$ or $x2* = \frac{w-p3x3}{p1+p2}$ and $x3* = \frac{w-(p1+p2)a}{p3}$

Confusion

How to proceed? Can I still use a Lagrangian to solve this?

I know how to solve the two-good case with $u(x) = \min\{x_1, x_2\}$, but the addition of $x_3$ confuses me.

Problem

Derive the demand function $x(p,w)$ from $u(x) = \min\{x_1, x_2\} + x_3$.

What I did so far

We assume that in optimum $x_1 = x_2$.

Set up the budget constraint $p_1x_1 + p_2x_2 + p_3x_3 = w$.

Rewrite budget constraint as $(p_1+p_2)x_1 + p_3x_3 = w$ or $(p_1+p_2)x_2 + p_3x_3 = w$.

We can write $x_1^*=x_2^* = \frac{w-p_3x_3}{p_1+p_2}$ and $x_3^* = \frac{w-(p_1+p_2)x_1^*}{p_3}$.

Confusion

How to proceed? Can I still use a Lagrangian to solve this?

Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user

Derive demand function $x(p,w)$ from utility function $u(x) = \min\{x1x_1, x2\x_2\} + x3$x_3$

Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user

Derive demand function $x(p,w)$ from utility function $u(x) = min\min\{x1, x2x2\} + x3x3$

I know how to solve the two-good case with u(x) = {min x1, x2}$u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\}$, but the addition of x3$x3$ confuses me.

Problem: derive the demand function x(p,w) from $u(x)$ = min{x1, x2} + x3

Derive the demand function $x(p,w)$ from $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\} + x3$

What I did so far We

We assume that in optimum $x1 = x2$.

Set up the budget constraint $p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 = w$

Rewrite budget constraint as $(p1+p2)x1 + p3x3 = w$ or $(p1+p2)x2 + p3x3 = w$

We can write $x1*$ or $x2* = (w-p3x3)/(p1+p2)$$x2* = \frac{w-p3x3}{p1+p2}$ and $x3* = (w-(p1+p2)a)/(p3)$$x3* = \frac{w-(p1+p2)a}{p3}$

Confusion

How to proceed? Can I still use a Lagrangian to solve this?

Derive demand function $x(p,w) from utility function $u(x) = min{x1, x2} + x3

I know how to solve the two-good case with u(x) = {min x1, x2}, but the addition of x3 confuses me.

Problem: derive the demand function x(p,w) from $u(x)$ = min{x1, x2} + x3

What I did so far We assume that in optimum $x1 = x2$.

Set up the budget constraint $p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 = w$

Rewrite budget constraint as $(p1+p2)x1 + p3x3 = w$ or $(p1+p2)x2 + p3x3 = w$

We can write $x1*$ or $x2* = (w-p3x3)/(p1+p2)$ and $x3* = (w-(p1+p2)a)/(p3)$

Confusion

How to proceed? Can I still use a Lagrangian to solve this?

Derive demand function $x(p,w)$ from utility function $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\} + x3$

I know how to solve the two-good case with $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\}$, but the addition of $x3$ confuses me.

Problem

Derive the demand function $x(p,w)$ from $u(x) = \min\{x1, x2\} + x3$

What I did so far

We assume that in optimum $x1 = x2$.

Set up the budget constraint $p1x1 + p2x2 + p3x3 = w$

Rewrite budget constraint as $(p1+p2)x1 + p3x3 = w$ or $(p1+p2)x2 + p3x3 = w$

We can write $x1*$ or $x2* = \frac{w-p3x3}{p1+p2}$ and $x3* = \frac{w-(p1+p2)a}{p3}$

Confusion

How to proceed? Can I still use a Lagrangian to solve this?

Source Link
Loading