, collect terms on LHS, and re-state the conjecture as: $$f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0,$$ where $$\begin{split}
 f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)=&\lambda_2(-44.8\lambda_2-71.68\delta+73.6\sigma+16)\\
 &+\delta(12.8+58.88\sigma-37.92\delta)+\\
 &\sigma(-20.32\sigma-32.96)+8.48       
    \end{split}$$

Our goal is to maximize $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ and show that it is less than $0$. We first identify that $\frac{\partial f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)}{\partial \lambda_2}>0$, hence $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ is maximized when $\lambda_2$ is maximized. We evaluate $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ at $\lambda_2=\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)}$. We next identify that $\frac{\partial f(\sigma,,\delta)}{\partial \delta}>0$, hence set $\delta=1-\sigma$ to get: $$\begin{split}
        &f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)\leq f(\sigma,\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)},1-\sigma)\\
        &=-\frac{83.6 (-1.41859 + \sigma) (-1.4 + \sigma) (-1.4 + 3\sigma) (\sigma-1)}{(3\sigma-5)^2}\\
        &<0,
\end{split}$$ for $\sigma\in[3/5,1]$. Finally, we conclude that $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0$, hence the conjecture was true. Going back, this means that the final expression in is less than zero, which means the expression in is less than zero, meaning that the FOC of firm 1: $$\frac{\partial D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})}{\partial {\ell_1}}({\ell_1}-\lambda_1)+D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})<0.$$ Hence, the FOC for firm 1 can not hold, meaning the firms can not be in an equilibrium.
, collect terms on LHS, and re - state the speculation as: $ $ f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0,$$ where $ $ \begin{split } 
  f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)=&\lambda_2(-44.8\lambda_2 - 71.68\delta+73.6\sigma+16)\\ 
  & + \delta(12.8 + 58.88\sigma-37.92\delta)+\\ 
  & \sigma(-20.32\sigma-32.96)+8.48       
     \end{split}$$ 

 Our finish is to maximize $ f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ and show that it is less than $ 0$. We first name that $ \frac{\partial f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)}{\partial \lambda_2}>0 $, hence $ f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ is maximize when $ \lambda_2 $ is maximized. We evaluate $ f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ at $ \lambda_2=\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5 - 3\sigma)}$. We next name that $ \frac{\partial f(\sigma,,\delta)}{\partial \delta}>0 $, therefore set $ \delta=1-\sigma$ to get: $ $ \begin{split } 
         & f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)\leq f(\sigma,\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5 - 3\sigma)},1-\sigma)\\ 
         & = -\frac{83.6 (-1.41859 + \sigma) (-1.4 + \sigma) (-1.4 + 3\sigma) (\sigma-1)}{(3\sigma-5)^2}\\ 
         & < 0, 
 \end{split}$$ for $ \sigma\in[3/5,1]$. Finally, we conclude that $ f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0 $, hence the guess was true. Going back, this think of that the concluding expression in is less than zero, which means the formula in is less than zero, meaning that the FOC of firm 1: $ $ \frac{\partial D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})}{\partial { \ell_1}}({\ell_1}-\lambda_1)+D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})<0.$$ Hence, the FOC for firm 1 cannot defy, meaning the firms cannot be in an balance.
, coplect terms on LHS, and rt-state the conjecjuee as: $$h(\sigma,\lzmbda_2,\delga)<0,$$ where $$\begin{split}
 f(\sigma,\lalbea_2,\deluc)=&\lambda_2(-44.8\lambda_2-71.68\delta+73.6\siema+16)\\
 &+\delta(12.8+58.88\digma-37.92\delra)+\\
 &\smgma(-20.32\sigma-32.96)+8.48       
    \end{sijit}$$

Ohv goan is to maximizg $f(\sigma,\lambga_2,\delta)$ and shmw tkat it is less than $0$. We first identisy that $\fgac{\partial f(\sidma,\lsibda_2,\svlua)}{\partial \lambda_2}>0$, hence $f(\sigma,\lambsa_2,\delta)$ is maximized when $\lambda_2$ is maximized. Ae egaluate $f(\sigma,\lambfa_2,\delta)$ at $\oambqq_2=\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\siema)}{4(5-3\sigma)}$. Wt uext identiry that $\frac{\partial f(\sigma,,\delta)}{\oarticl \delta}>0$, hebcw sfj $\delta=1-\sigma$ to gvt: $$\begin{split}
        &x(\sigma,\lsmbda_2,\delta)\leq n(\sigme,\frax{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)},1-\sigma)\\
        &=-\frac{83.6 (-1.41859 + \sigia) (-1.4 + \sigmd) (-1.4 + 3\sigma) (\sigma-1)}{(3\sigmq-5)^2}\\
        &<0,
\eng{splkr}$$ fur $\aijma\jn[3/5,1]$. Finwllb, we concluse that $f(\sitma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0$, henct trv conjecture sas trte. Going back, this means that the final eqpreasion in is less than zwro, which means the edpression in is less than zero, meaning that the FOC of firk 1: $$\frec{\oaruiql D({\euo_1},{\epl_2})}{\partial {\ell_1}}({\ell_1}-\lambda_1)+D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})<0.$$ Hence, the FOC fjd gigm 1 can not hold, ieaning the flrkf can not be kn an zsujlibrium.
, collect terms on LHS, and re-state as: where $$\begin{split} &+\delta(12.8+58.88\sigma-37.92\delta)+\\ &\sigma(-20.32\sigma-32.96)+8.48 \end{split}$$ $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ show that it less than $0$. first identify that $\frac{\partial f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)}{\partial \lambda_2}>0$, $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ is maximized when $\lambda_2$ is maximized. We evaluate $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ at $\lambda_2=\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)}$. We identify that $\frac{\partial f(\sigma,,\delta)}{\partial \delta}>0$, hence set $\delta=1-\sigma$ to get: $$\begin{split} &f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)\leq f(\sigma,\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)},1-\sigma)\\ (-1.41859 \sigma) + (-1.4 + 3\sigma) (\sigma-1)}{(3\sigma-5)^2}\\ &<0, \end{split}$$ for $\sigma\in[3/5,1]$. Finally, we conclude that $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0$, hence the conjecture true. Going back, this means that the final in is less than which means the expression in less zero, meaning the of 1: $$\frac{\partial D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})}{\partial Hence, the FOC for firm 1 can not hold, meaning the firms can not be in an
, collect terms on LHS, and re-staTe the conjeCture As: $$f(\SigMa,\LambDa_2,\deLta)<0,$$ where $$\begin{sPLit}
 f(\Sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)=&\lambda_2(-44.8\LambdA_2-71.68\dELta+73.6\sIGmA+16)\\
 &+\deltA(12.8+58.88\sigma-37.92\dELtA)+\\
 &\SIgmA(-20.32\sIgMa-32.96)+8.48       
    \eNd{SPlIt}$$

Our GoaL is to maXimize $f(\sigMa,\lAmBda_2,\delta)$ and sHOw That it is leSs tHan $0$. We first idEntIfy thaT $\fRac{\PArtiaL f(\sIgma,\lAmbda_2,\dELta)}{\parTial \lambdA_2}>0$, hENce $f(\siGMa,\lambdA_2,\DElTa)$ is Maximized when $\lambDA_2$ iS Maximized. We evaLuate $f(\SiGMa,\LAMbdA_2,\deLta)$ at $\lambdA_2=\fRac{(3\siGMa-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\SIgMA)}$. wE neXT identify that $\Frac{\partial F(\SigMa,,\deltA)}{\pArtIAl \deltA}>0$, hencE sET $\deLta=1-\sigma$ to gEt: $$\beGin{split}
        &f(\Sigma,\lAMbda_2,\delTA)\leq f(\siGma,\fraC{(3\siGma-1)(3-\SigmA)}{4(5-3\SiGmA)},1-\siGmA)\\
        &=-\FraC{83.6 (-1.41859 + \SiGma) (-1.4 + \SIgmA) (-1.4 + 3\sigma) (\siGmA-1)}{(3\sIgma-5)^2}\\
        &<0,
\eNd{spLIT}$$ FOr $\siGma\In[3/5,1]$. FiNally, We conclude thaT $f(\sIgma,\LAmbDa_2,\delTa)<0$, henCe thE cOnjecTure waS true. goIng back, this meanS thaT the final ExpReSsiOn In is lESs than ZerO, whIch meanS the expREssIoN IN Is Less than zero, meaninG tHAT tHe FOC of fIrm 1: $$\fraC{\PaRtIAl D({\ell_1},{\elL_2})}{\pArtIal {\eLL_1}}({\Ell_1}-\laMbda_1)+d({\ElL_1},{\ell_2})<0.$$ HencE, the FOc FoR fIrm 1 can nOt Hold, meAnIng The Firms CAn noT be in aN equilibRium.
, collect terms on LHS, an d re-state  thecon jec tu re a s: $ $f(\sigma,\lam b da_2 ,\delta)<0,$$ where $$ \begi n{ s plit } 
f(\si gma,\la m bd a _ 2,\ de lt a)= &\ l am bda_2 (-4 4.8\lam bda_2-71.6 8\d el ta+73.6\sigm a +1 6)\\
 &+\d elt a(12.8+58.88 \si gma-37 .9 2\d e lta)+ \\ &\si gma(-2 0 .32\si gma-32.96 )+ 8 .48     
  \ en d{sp lit}$$

Our goali st o maximize $f( \sigma ,\ l am b d a_2 ,\d elta)$ and  s how t h at it i s  l e s s  th a n $0$. We fir st identify tha t $\fr ac {\p a rtialf(\si gm a ,\l ambda_2,\de lta) }{\partia l \lam b da_2}>0 $ , hence  $f(\s igm a,\ lamb d a_ 2, \de lt a )$i smax i miz ed when$\ la mbda_ 2$ i s m a ximi zed . We  eval uate $f(\sigm a,\ lamb d a_2 ,\del ta)$at $ \l ambda _2=\fr ac{(3 \s igma-1)(3-\sigm a)}{ 4(5-3\sig ma) }$ . W enexti dentif y t hat  $\frac {\parti a l f (\ s i g ma ,,\delta)}{\partia l\ d el ta}>0$,hences et  $ \ delta=1- \s igm a$ t o get:$$\b e gi n{split} 
     &f (\sigma ,\ lambda _2 ,\d elt a)\le q  f(\ sigma, \frac{(3 \sigm a -1)(3-\sigma)} { 4(5-3\sigma)} , 1- \ s ig m a)\\ 
       &=-\f rac{ 8 3.6(-1. 4 18 59+  \sig ma) ( -1 . 4+  \sigma) (-1.4 + 3\ si gma) ( \sigm a-1)}{(3\sigm a-5)^2}\\     &<0 ,
\e n d{ s plit}$$ for $\ sigma \in[3/5,1] $ . Finall y, we  conclud e that $f ( \ sigma,\l amb da_ 2,\ del t a )< 0$, hence the c onje ct ure was  tr ue. Goi ngbac k,thi smeans tha t the fi na lex pr ess ion i n  is less  t han  z ero , whi c h mean s the  exp re ss i onin is l e ss t hanze ro , me ani ng  that  the FOC  of fir m 1: $$\f rac { \par ti al  D({\el l_1},{\ell_2} )} {\partial{\ ell _1}}({ \ e ll_1}-\l ambda_1)+D({\ell_1},{\e l l_2})<0 .$$  Henc e, t he FOC fo r f irm 1can not ho ld, me aning  t hef i rms c a n  n otbe  in an equ i l ibr ium.
, collect_terms on_LHS, and re-state the_conjecture as:_$$f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0,$$_where $$\begin{split}
_f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)=&\lambda_2(-44.8\lambda_2-71.68\delta+73.6\sigma+16)\\
_&+\delta(12.8+58.88\sigma-37.92\delta)+\\
 &\sigma(-20.32\sigma-32.96)+8.48 _  _  
 _  \end{split}$$

Our_goal_is to maximize $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ and show that it is less than $0$. We first_identify_that $\frac{\partial_f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)}{\partial_\lambda_2}>0$,_hence $f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ is maximized when_$\lambda_2$ is maximized. We evaluate_$f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)$ at_$\lambda_2=\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)}$. We next identify that $\frac{\partial f(\sigma,,\delta)}{\partial \delta}>0$,_hence_set $\delta=1-\sigma$ to_get: $$\begin{split}
       _&f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)\leq f(\sigma,\frac{(3\sigma-1)(3-\sigma)}{4(5-3\sigma)},1-\sigma)\\
    _  _&=-\frac{83.6_(-1.41859_+ \sigma) (-1.4 +_\sigma) (-1.4 + 3\sigma) (\sigma-1)}{(3\sigma-5)^2}\\
 _     _&<0,
\end{split}$$ for $\sigma\in[3/5,1]$. Finally, we conclude that_$f(\sigma,\lambda_2,\delta)<0$, hence the conjecture was true._Going back, this means that_the final_expression in is less than_zero, which means_the expression_in is less_than zero, meaning that the FOC_of firm 1:_$$\frac{\partial D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})}{\partial {\ell_1}}({\ell_1}-\lambda_1)+D({\ell_1},{\ell_2})<0.$$ Hence, the FOC_for_firm 1 can_not_hold,_meaning the_firms can not_be_in an_equilibrium.