|
- Second Order Condition - Always means second derivative?
In optimisation, does First Order Condition (FOC) always mean a condition for a max min related to the first derivative Similarly, is Second Order Condition (SOC), called second order because it relates to the second derivative?
- FOCs for profit maximization using a transformation function
I'm (still) reading the microeconomics textbook of Mas-Colell et al On p 135, the profit maximization problem (PMP) for producers is introduced; characterizing the
- FOC greater than 0 - Economics Stack Exchange
A hint suggested to find take the FOC, and then set $x = 0$ and I would see that FOC is greater than 0, meaning that $x = 0$ cannot possibly be a utility maximizing choice, and the consumer must hold a positive amount of assets
- simplification of FOC - Economics Stack Exchange
simplification of FOC Ask Question Asked 3 years, 7 months ago Modified 3 years, 7 months ago
- Contradictory FOC and maximizing solution - Economics Stack Exchange
FOC are \textit {necessary} for an inner optimum (can be a max or min or saddle) and SOC (often) allow to characterize the type of optimum At the boundaries (when x go to 0 or 1) there can be a max (or a sup), a min (or an inf) with no FOC being satisfied
- Externalities - First order conditions - Economics Stack Exchange
The optimization problem is My question is how did they arrive at those FOC's? UPDATE:The second part of this optimization is to look at the problem from firm 1 perspective, it follows like this: Now look at the problem from the point of view of firm 1 Once the victim firm makes its offer of a conditional bribe, firm 1 should take account of it
- Bellman Equation Envelope Theorem - Economics Stack Exchange
I'm unsure where the envelope theorem comes into play when i differentiate the Bellman Equation with respect to $k_t$ To me it looks like the regular chain rule and
|
|
|