Continous function in interval problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter nuuskur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Interval
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a continuous function f defined on the interval [0,2] with the condition that f(0) = f(2). The goal is to demonstrate the existence of two points x and y in the interval such that y - x = 1 and f(x) = f(y).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use the Bolzano-Cauchy theorem to establish the existence of points satisfying the given conditions. Some participants question whether the proof holds for arbitrary intervals and continuous functions beyond the specific case presented.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in a critique of the proof presented, with some expressing confidence in its validity while others encourage generalization and challenge the assumptions made. There is an ongoing exploration of the implications of the proof and its presentation.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the conditions under which the proof is valid, particularly regarding the choice of intervals and the nature of the function f. Some participants note the importance of careful presentation in mathematical proofs.

nuuskur
Science Advisor
Messages
929
Reaction score
1,226

Homework Statement


Let [itex]f: [0,2]\to\mathbb{R}[/itex] be continuous and [itex]f(0) = f(2)[/itex]. Show that there exist [itex]x,y\in [0,2][/itex] with the following property:
[itex](*)\ y-x = 1[/itex] and [itex]f(x) = f(y)\ (*)[/itex]

Homework Equations


Bolzano-Cauchy theorem: If a function [itex]f[/itex] is continuous in some interval [itex][a,b][/itex] and [itex]f(a) <0, f(b) > 0[/itex] (or vice versa) then there exists [itex]c\in (a,b)[/itex] such that [itex]f(c) = 0[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


If [itex]f[/itex] was constant, then it's trivial. Fix [itex]x\in [0,1][/itex] and the condition [itex]f(x+1)-f(x) = 0[/itex] is satisfied.
Hence, assume [itex]f[/itex] is not constant.

Let us observe function [itex]g(x) := f(x+1)-f(x)[/itex], [itex]0\leq x\leq 1[/itex]. The objective is to show that [itex]g(x)=0[/itex] is possible with which we will have proven the existence of the required [itex]x,y[/itex] (is this correct to say? )

Let us note that:
[itex]g(0) = f(1) - f(0)[/itex] and [itex]g(1) = f(2) - f(1) = f(0) - f(1)[/itex]. If [itex]g(0) > 0[/itex], then [itex]g(1) <0[/itex] (or vice versa), we can therefore conclude that:
Per Bolzano-Cauchy theorem there exists [itex]c\in (0,1)[/itex] such that [itex]g(c) = f(c+1) - f(c) = 0[/itex] from which we can establish [itex]x = c[/itex] and [itex]y = c+1[/itex] and the condition [itex](*)[/itex] is satisfied

If [itex]g(0) = 0[/itex] then also [itex]g(1) = 0[/itex] and again the condition [itex](*)[/itex] is satisfied. [itex]Q.E.D[/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks nice. And what exactly do you expect as replies here? Does your proof still hold for arbitrary c ∈[0,d] with y - x = c and arbitrary continuous functions f : [a,b] → ℝ with f(a) = f(b) and how big can d be at most?
 
Last edited:
Most of all expect criticism on presenting proof, generalizing the problem is welcome. Also would like the proof to be challenged if there is something I might have missed.
 
nuuskur said:
Most of all expect criticism on presenting proof, generalizing the problem is welcome. Also would like the proof to be challenged if there is something I might have missed.
I've seen nothing wrong. And your presentation reveals that you work carefully and think about the special cases. I'ld let it go through. (Bluster me if I'm wrong!) There is only one little, tiny, small remark from my side: Don't shout QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. A simpe qed will do and a ◊ or box is even more pleasant
 
nuuskur said:
Most of all expect criticism on presenting proof, generalizing the problem is welcome. Also would like the proof to be challenged if there is something I might have missed.
I've seen nothing wrong. And your presentation reveals that you work carefully and think about the special cases. I'ld let it go through. (Bluster me if I'm wrong!) There is only one little, tiny, small remark from my side: Don't shout QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. A simpe qed will do and a ◊ or box is even more pleasant. :wink:

- sorry, probs with the connection and a failed search for a remove button
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K