Does the Converse of the Mean Value Theorem Hold?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion confirms that the converse of the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) holds under specific conditions. It establishes that if the derivative f' is strictly increasing in a neighborhood of a point a, then there exist two points x and y such that the secant line between them is parallel to the tangent at a. The example of the function f(x) = x^2 illustrates that mere monotonicity of f' is insufficient for the converse to hold, as shown by the behavior of f' at x = 0. The theorem is rigorously proven using the properties of derivatives and continuity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Mean Value Theorem (MVT)
  • Knowledge of derivatives and their properties
  • Familiarity with concepts of continuity in calculus
  • Ability to analyze functions and their graphs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Mean Value Theorem and its applications in calculus
  • Explore the implications of strictly increasing functions on derivatives
  • Investigate examples of functions where the converse of MVT does not hold
  • Learn about the relationship between continuity and differentiability in calculus
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, calculus instructors, and anyone interested in advanced topics in differential calculus and the properties of functions.

xalvyn
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
hi...

was wondering, does the converse of the mean value theorem hold?

that is, given any function f(x), and a tangent to the graph of y = f(x) at any point, can we always construct two points on the graph (with the tangent lying between) such that the line joining them is parallel to the tangent?

thanks to anyone who can share some insight..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
look at a picture. try two cases, convex graph, or not. lok at y = x^3 at (0,0).
 
One sufficient condition for a MVT converse to hold at a is that f'(x) is strictly increasing in a neighborhood of a. "Monotonic" increasing is not enough, as in the example of [tex]f(x) = x^2, x > 0, f(x) = 0, x \leq 0[/tex]. f'(0) = 0, but for any x < 0 < y, we have f(y)-f(x) = f(y) > 0 = f'(0)(y-x).

Theorem: Fix a number a. If f' is strictly increasing in some neighborhood (a-e,a+e) of a, then there exists x < a < y such that (f(y)-f(x))/(y-x) = f'(a).

proof:

By the mean value theorem, there exists c in (a-e,a), d in (a,a+e), D in (a-e,a+e) such that [tex]\frac{f(a)-f(a-e)}{e} = f'(c) < f'(a) < f'(d) = \frac{f(a+e)-f(a)}{e}, \ \frac{f(a+e)-f(a-e)}{2e} = f'(D)[/tex].

If D = a, we are done. Otherwise, assume a < D < a + e. (a-e<D<a case done similarly.)

Consider the lines [tex]L_1(t),L_2(t),L_3(t)[/tex] with slopes [tex]f'(c)<f'(a)<f'(D)[/tex] respectively, such that [tex]L_i(a-e) = f(a-e)[/tex]. (I.e., they all start at the point (a-e,f(a-e)).) To the right of the point a - e we have [tex]L_1(t) < L_2(t) < L_3(t)[/tex]. [tex]L_2(t)-f(t)[/tex] is a continuous function on [tex][a,a+h][/tex], [tex]L_2(a)-f(a) = L_2(a) - L_1(a) > 0[/tex], [tex]L_2(a+e)-f(a+e) = L_2(a+e) - L_3(a+e) < 0[/tex], so by continuity, [tex]L_2(y) = f(y)[/tex] for some y in (a,a+h). It follows that [tex]\frac{f(y)-f(a-h)}{y-(a-h)} = f'(a)[/tex].
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K