Langrange's Mean Value Theorem question

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
Ryuzaki
Messages
46
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find a function f on [-1,1] such that :-

(a) there exists c [itex]\in[/itex] (-1,1) such that f'(c) = 0 and
(b) f(a) [itex]\neq[/itex] f(b) for any a[itex]\neq[/itex] b [itex]\in[/itex] [-1,1]

Homework Equations



Lagrange's Mean Value Theorem (LMVT), which states that if f:[a,b]-->ℝ is a function which is continuous in [a,b] and differentiable in (a,b), there exists some c[itex]\in[/itex] (a,b) such that f'(c) = (f(b) - f(a))/(b-a).

The Attempt at a Solution



If f was said to be differentiable in (-1,1), then it's quite easy to prove that such a function cannot exist, using LMVT. But here, nothing is said about the continuity or differentiability of f in (-1,1). The function could just be differentiable at the point x = c.

I'm quite sure that such a function cannot exist. However, this is purely intuitive, and I'm unable to prove it. Can someone please hint on a proof, or an example if there's any?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ryuzaki said:
If f was said to be differentiable in (-1,1), then it's quite easy to prove that such a function cannot exist, using LMVT.
I don't see that. In fact, I don't see the relevance of LMVT here. Were you told to use it somehow? Unless I've misunderstood something, there's quite an easy (and differentiable) solution.
 
Thank you, haruspex for your reply. No, I wasn't told to use LMVT, but that was the only way I could think of.

Well, what I had in mind was assuming that such a function f exists, which is continuous in [-1,1] and differentiable in (-1,1), and f(a) not equals f(b), for any a not equals b, in [-1,1] (Sorry for my abstinence from symbols, I'm typing from my phone). Then by LMVT, there would exist some c such that

f'(c) = (f(1) - f(-1))/(1-(-1))

Now, if f'(c) were to be 0, then essentially f(-1) = f(1).

But we assumed that, f(a) not equals f(b), for any a not equals b, yet we got f(-1) = f(1). Hence, our assumption is wrong, and therefore such a function cannot exist.

But the above proof relies on the assumption that f is continuous in [-1,1] and differentiable in (-1,1). But this need not be the case. From the question, what I understand is that f could very well be differentiable ONLY at x = c.

Could you share your thoughts on this, haruspex? Please don't give out the solution, as I'd like to have the pleasure of solving it on my own. Thanks.
 
Ryuzaki said:
Thank you, haruspex for your reply. No, I wasn't told to use LMVT, but that was the only way I could think of.

Well, what I had in mind was assuming that such a function f exists, which is continuous in [-1,1] and differentiable in (-1,1), and f(a) not equals f(b), for any a not equals b, in [-1,1] (Sorry for my abstinence from symbols, I'm typing from my phone). Then by LMVT, there would exist some c such that

f'(c) = (f(1) - f(-1))/(1-(-1))

Now, if f'(c) were to be 0, then essentially f(-1) = f(1).
Sure, there exists some c s.t. f'(c) = (f(1) - f(-1))/(1-(-1)), but why should f'(c)=0 for that c? f could quite easily be 0 somewhere else.
Think of some point at which f' is zero. Now extend f left and right satisfying f(a)≠f(b).