How does Rolle's Theorem prove that a function is constant?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sponsoredwalk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Rolle's Theorem, particularly focusing on the conditions under which a function is shown to be constant on a closed interval [a, b]. Participants explore the implications of the Extreme Value Theorem and the behavior of the function at critical points.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that if a function f(x) is equal at the endpoints f(a) = f(b) and has a derivative f'(c) = 0 at some point c, it suggests that the function must be constant.
  • Another participant questions the reasoning behind the limits in the proof, particularly how moving beyond the supremum affects the function's values.
  • There is a discussion about the sign of the difference f(c+h) - f(c) when h is positive or negative, with one participant clarifying that for h > 0, the result is negative, while for h < 0, the result becomes positive due to the division by a negative value.
  • One participant expresses confusion about obtaining a positive result when using h < 0, despite being at the maximum of the function, and reflects on the behavior of the slope as the limit approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the proof, with some clarifying points for others. However, there is no consensus on the interpretation of the limits and the implications of the signs in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings regarding the limits used in the proof, particularly the direction from which they approach the critical point and the implications of the function's behavior at the maximum.

sponsoredwalk
Messages
531
Reaction score
5
Hey PF'ers :biggrin:

I'm having trouble with a proof of Rolle's Theorem.

I understand that by the Extreme Value theorem the function on the closed interval [a,b] must attain both a supremum and an infimum
so if f(x) = f(a) = f(b) \forall x \in [a,b] and f&#039;(c) = 0 then it must be a constant function.

That is the trivial case.

If I understand the proof correctly from here it goes as follows.

By the Extreme Value Theorem applied to Rolle's theorem there must exist a point c ∈ [a,b] where the function changes from positive slope to negative slope.

What we want to do is show that at the point f(c) the left and right limits, though both being of opposite sign, will be equal to the same point in the end.

It's just that in the following link, http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/%7Eigc/tch/ma2001/notes/node42.html" the proof has me confused.

It's just the two cases they show in Rolle's Proof, the two if h>0, & if h<0, parts I need help understanding.

1: Is the first one saying "if you go beyond the supremum c by a small amount h you'll end up below the value f(c) and because of this you'll end up with a value less than 0 (i.e. be negative) ?

2: Also, in the h<0 part why does that become positive?
If you're at the supremum of any function and you move either way you can only move down!

I might be mixing something up or misunderstanding something about 2:.

I think I may be most confused the the limits they use, they are both coming from the left side & shouldn't one be from the left and the other be from the right?

If This is so, shouldn't the first limit be coming from the right (i.e. from the positive side of the graph toward the negative side)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
hi,

"
2: Also, in the h<0 part why does that become positive?
If you're at the supremum of any function and you move either way you can only move down!
"

f(c+h) - f(c) is negative and h is negative, so

f(c+h) - f(c) / h is positive I think that you might be right about the limit sides
 
1. If h>0, then f(c+h) - f(c) will be less than zero. This is because f(c+h) must be less than f(c) (as f(c) is the maximum). Because h is positive, dividing by it still gives a negative value.

2. In the second part, f(c+h) - f(c) is again less than zero, but this time you are dividing by negative h, so the result is positive.
 
Wow thanks for the quick responses guys.

Yeah I think I understand it now.

It's just confused me to have a positive result when you use h<0 and you're at the top of the function!

As the limit is reached that positive number goes to zero.

The positive result is the slope of the small increment below c that is striving up to it.
 

Similar threads

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