Proving f(x)=0 by Least Upper Bound on [a,b]

In summary, if f is continuous on [a,b] with f(a)<0<f(b), the Intermediate Value Theorem guarantees that there is an x in [a,b] where f(x) = 0. This can also be proven by using the least upper bound, z, where z is the largest x in [a,b] satisfying f(x) = 0. To finish the proof, it needs to be shown that z is in [a,b], f(z) = 0, and no value x > z in [a,b] satisfies f(x) = 0.
  • #1
andilus
8
0
if f is continuous on [a,b] with f(a)<0<f(b), show that there is a largest x in [a,b] with f(x)=0

i think it can be done by least upper bounds, but i dun know wat is the exact prove.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Look up "Intermediate Value Theorem" or "Bolzano's Theorem."
 
  • #3
As another poster suggested, the intermediate value theorem guarantees there is an x in [a,b] where f(x) = 0. And your idea of using the lub is a good one. So let

[itex] z = [/itex] lub [itex]\{ x \in [a,b] | f(x) = 0\} [/itex]

So what you need to show to finish the problem is:

1. z is in [a,b]
2. f(z) = 0
3. No value x > z in [a,b] satisfies f(x) = 0.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I now see that this is a duplicate of an identical thread in the Calculus & Beyond section. Please don't do that. It wastes our time answering questions that have already been answered elsewhere.
 

FAQ: Proving f(x)=0 by Least Upper Bound on [a,b]

What is the importance of proving f(x)=0 by Least Upper Bound?

Proving f(x)=0 by Least Upper Bound is important because it provides a rigorous mathematical proof that shows a function has a root, or a value of x that makes the function equal to zero, within a given interval [a,b]. It also establishes the existence of the root and allows for the use of numerical methods to approximate the root if an exact solution cannot be found.

What is the concept of Least Upper Bound?

The Least Upper Bound, or supremum, of a set of numbers is the smallest number that is greater than or equal to all the numbers in the set. In the context of proving f(x)=0, the Least Upper Bound on an interval [a,b] represents the smallest value of x that makes the function equal to zero within that interval.

How does the Least Upper Bound method work?

The Least Upper Bound method involves dividing the given interval [a,b] into smaller subintervals and checking if the function changes signs between the endpoints of each subinterval. If the function changes signs, then the Least Upper Bound must lie between those endpoints. This process is repeated until the subintervals become small enough to approximate the Least Upper Bound with a desired level of accuracy.

What are the limitations of proving f(x)=0 by Least Upper Bound?

The main limitation of this method is that it assumes the function is continuous on the given interval [a,b]. If the function is not continuous, the Least Upper Bound may not accurately represent the root of the function. Additionally, this method may be computationally intensive for complex functions or intervals with a large number of subintervals.

How does proving f(x)=0 by Least Upper Bound relate to other root finding methods?

The Least Upper Bound method is a specific type of bracketing method, which means it narrows down the root of the function by identifying an interval where the root must lie. Other root finding methods, such as the Bisection method and the Newton-Raphson method, use different techniques to approximate the root, but they also rely on bracketing the root within a given interval.

Similar threads

Back
Top