Using Rolles Theorem on F(x)=x^2+3x on [0,2]

  • Thread starter Thread starter physics_ash82
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Rolle's Theorem to the function F(x) = x^2 + 3x on the interval [0, 2]. Participants are exploring the conditions under which the theorem can be applied and clarifying the differences between Rolle's Theorem and the Mean Value Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • One participant attempts to apply Rolle's Theorem by discussing the conditions for its use and the relationship between the derivative and the function values at the endpoints. Others question the original poster's understanding of the theorem and clarify the distinction between Rolle's Theorem and the Mean Value Theorem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback and corrections. There is acknowledgment of misunderstandings regarding the application of the theorems, and some participants are engaging in deeper theoretical considerations about the implications of these theorems.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion between the Mean Value Theorem and Rolle's Theorem, with participants addressing the specific conditions required for each theorem to apply. The original poster recognizes their error in terminology, which contributes to the ongoing dialogue.

physics_ash82
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Ok I think I can use Rolles theorem on F(x)=x^2+3x on the inteval [ 0,2]
because the derivative can be defined
so then I think I use the formula [f(b)-f(a)] / [b-a] to find f'(c), then set f'(c) = F'(x) and solve is this process right?:shy:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you even trying to prove?
 
It seems you're using the mean value theorem, which is the one you listed. Rolle's theorem says that if f(a)=f(b) on some closed interval, then there must be some point c such that f'(c)=0.
 
rolles theorem is a trivial consequence of the obvious (but deep) fact that a continuous function f which takes the same value twice must have a local extremum in between.

then rolle says if f is also differentiable, the derivative is zero there.

the MVT is then a further trivial consequence of rolle.

i.e. both rolle and MVT are trivial, but useful consequences of one deep result about continuity.

my point is that the emphasis on these two as big time theorems is quite misplaced.

even their statements take away something from the result, since just knowing the derivative is zero somewhere in between two points is decidedly weaker than knowing there is a local extremum.

for instance the statement of rolles theorem does not imply that between two critical points of a continuously differentiable function there must be a flex, but the stronger result does.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the replys

I had seen my error after my post I was using the mean value theorem instead of rolles theorem opps:blushing: thanks for the replys though
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K