Can a Function Be a Strict Contraction with a Derivative of 1 at a Point?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattmns
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contraction
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an example of a continuously differentiable function that is a strict contraction while having a derivative of 1 at some point within a specified interval. The concept of strict contraction is defined in terms of the distance between function values being less than the distance between their inputs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the characteristics of functions that could meet the criteria, with one suggesting the function f(x) = -cos(x) as a potential example. There is discussion about the implications of the mean value theorem and the conditions under which a function can be considered a strict contraction.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning the assumptions related to the mean value theorem and the definition of strict contraction. Some have expressed confusion about the conditions necessary for a function to be classified as a strict contraction, while others are attempting to clarify these points. There is no explicit consensus yet, but the conversation is progressing with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the need for a function to have a derivative less than 1 at most points while allowing for a derivative of 1 at least one point. Participants are also considering the implications of continuity and differentiability in the context of the problem.

mattmns
Messages
1,129
Reaction score
5
Here is the question
--------
Give an example of a function [itex]f:[a,b] \to \mathbb{R}[/itex] which is continuously differentiable and which is a strict contraction, but such that [itex]|f'(x)| = 1[/itex] for at least one value of [itex]x \in [a,b][/itex].
--------

Continuously differentiable means that the first derivative is continuous.

Strict contraction means that [itex]d(f(x),f(y)) < d(x,y)[/itex] for all [itex]x,y \in [a,b][/itex] (in our case the metric would just be the standard metric on R (d(x,y) = |x-y|)).------

When I was looking at the problem I figured we need something that has slope less than 1, then hits 1 for exactly one point, and then the slope goes back down below 1 again.

My first guess was sin (and cos).

For example. [itex]f:[0,\pi]\to \mathbb{R}[/itex] defined by [itex]f(x) = -cos(x)[/itex]. This gives us [itex]f'(x) = sin(x)[/itex]. Which will give us that [itex]f'(\pi/2) = 1[/itex].

I think this example should work, it is obviously continuously differentiable, but my problem is proving that f is a STRICT contraction. We know that f is a contraction by a previous exercise (if f is diff and [itex]|f'(x)| \leq 1[/itex] then f is a contraction). But getting the strict part I am having trouble with.

First, is it even true that it is a strict contraction? If so, any hints on how to prove it. Also, are there any interesting, or simpler, examples for this problem? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm confused with the question.

If [tex]f:[a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/tex] is continuously differentiable, then using the mean value theorem,

[tex]\frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y} = f'(c) , c \in [x,y][/tex]

So, won't f be a strict contraction only if [tex]f'(x)<1 \quad \forall x \in [a,b][/tex]?
 
Last edited:
I am not 100% sure, but the problem is as I stated it, I just double checked a minute ago.

I had thought of the same thing, but I think there is something with taking the limit that allows for equals. The argument you gave is similar to the one I gave for the previous problem (which was that if f is differentiable and [itex]|f'(x)| \leq 1[/itex] then f is a contraction).
 
siddharth said:
I'm confused with the question.

If [tex]f:[a,b] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/tex] is continuously differentiable, then using the mean value theorem,

[tex]\frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y} = f'(c) , c \in [x,y][/tex]

So, won't f be a strict contraction only if [tex]f'(x)<1 \quad \forall x \in [a,b][/tex]?
You're arguing backwards. What you say would only be true if for all c in [a,b], there exists x,y in [a,b] with [f(x)-f(y)]/[x-y] = f'(c).
 
mattmns said:
Here is the question
--------
Give an example of a function [itex]f:[a,b] \to \mathbb{R}[/itex] which is continuously differentiable and which is a strict contraction, but such that [itex]|f'(x)| = 1[/itex] for at least one value of [itex]x \in [a,b][/itex].
--------

Continuously differentiable means that the first derivative is continuous.

Strict contraction means that [itex]d(f(x),f(y)) < d(x,y)[/itex] for all [itex]x,y \in [a,b][/itex] (in our case the metric would just be the standard metric on R (d(x,y) = |x-y|)).


------

When I was looking at the problem I figured we need something that has slope less than 1, then hits 1 for exactly one point, and then the slope goes back down below 1 again.

My first guess was sin (and cos).

For example. [itex]f:[0,\pi]\to \mathbb{R}[/itex] defined by [itex]f(x) = -cos(x)[/itex]. This gives us [itex]f'(x) = sin(x)[/itex]. Which will give us that [itex]f'(\pi/2) = 1[/itex].

I think this example should work, it is obviously continuously differentiable, but my problem is proving that f is a STRICT contraction. We know that f is a contraction by a previous exercise (if f is diff and [itex]|f'(x)| \leq 1[/itex] then f is a contraction). But getting the strict part I am having trouble with.

First, is it even true that it is a strict contraction? If so, any hints on how to prove it. Also, are there any interesting, or simpler, examples for this problem? Thanks!
-cos(x) should work. If it didn't, there would be a point (x,f(x)) on the graph such that either the line with slope 1 or the line with slope -1 through (x,f(x)) intersects the graph of -cos(x) at another point. See graphically why this cannot be, and use this understanding to motivate a proof using calculus as to why this cannot be.
 
AKG said:
You're arguing backwards. What you say would only be true if for all c in [a,b], there exists x,y in [a,b] with [f(x)-f(y)]/[x-y] = f'(c).

Yeah, I understood my error, Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K