Correct proof (in stewart calculus) of fermat's theoram ?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ManishR
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion focuses on the proof of Fermat's theorem regarding stationary points as presented in Stewart Calculus. The author critiques a proof that incorrectly equates the derivative of a constant function with zero, emphasizing that the derivative must be evaluated using the limit definition. The correct interpretation shows that if a function has a maximum at point c, the derivative f'(c) must equal zero, as demonstrated through the one-sided limits of the difference quotient.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus concepts, specifically derivatives and limits.
  • Familiarity with Stewart Calculus textbook and its notation.
  • Knowledge of Fermat's theorem related to stationary points.
  • Ability to interpret mathematical proofs and inequalities.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the limit definition of a derivative in detail.
  • Explore the implications of Fermat's theorem in optimization problems.
  • Review examples of one-sided limits and their applications in calculus.
  • Learn about the relationship between critical points and local extrema in functions.
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of Fermat's theorem and its proof in the context of stationary points.

ManishR
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
the proof of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_theorem_%28stationary_points%29" from stewart calculus is in the pdf.

In short, the author has done something like this,
consider,
m\leq0

\Rightarrow\frac{m}{n}\leq0

so

\frac{m}{n}\leq0 if n>0 .....[1]

and

\frac{m}{n}\geq0 if n<0 .....[2]

from inqualties [1] & [2]

\frac{m}{n}=0

\Rightarrow m=0

which is incorrect because in
n of [1] =/= n of [2]

correct proof


Fermat Theoram Statement:
If

f(c)\geq f(c+k) OR f(c)\leq f(c+k) where a-c\leq k\leq b-c

Then

\left[\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=c}=0

Proof:

\left[\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=c}=\frac{df(c)}{dx}

\Rightarrow\left[\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=c}=\frac{dM}{dx} where M=f(c)

\Rightarrow\left[\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=c}=lim_{h\rightarrow0}\frac{M(x+h)-M(x)}{h}

\Rightarrow\left[\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=c}=lim_{h\rightarrow0}\frac{0}{h} because M(x+h)=M(x)

\Rightarrow\left[\frac{df(x)}{dx}\right]_{x=c}=0

so question is am i right ?
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your proof is incorrect. \left[ \frac{df}{dx}\right]_{x=c} is NOT the same thing as differentiating f(c). The latter will give zero no matter what point c is, because f(c) is just a constant. What you calculated is the derivative of f(c) on the right side of each of those equalities

The idea is that the derivative must be equal to the one sided limit as h goes to zero of \frac{f(c+h)-f(c)}{h}. For very small values of h, this is going to be close to some number L.

If c is a maximum, then when h is positive the fraction that we have is positive, so it must be that L is larger than or equal to zero (because L IS the limit). On the other hand, if h is negative the fraction that we have is negative, so it must be that L is smaller than or equal to zero.

So we have 0 \leq L \leq 0 which implies that L, which is f'(c), is zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K