Minimum distance of functions in a metric space

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves finding a value of t in the context of a metric space defined on continuous functions over the interval [0,1]. The distance between two functions, f(x) = e^x - 1 and g_t(x) = t * x, is expressed through an integral that needs to be minimized.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the process of minimizing a function of a single variable, with some suggesting the use of derivatives and the implications of the square root in the expression. Others question the necessity of integrating and explore the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of methods to find the minimum distance, with various participants offering insights on differentiation and the implications of simplifying the expression. Some participants have reached specific equations related to t, but there is no consensus on the correctness of these results.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through the complexities of calculus and metric spaces, with some expressing uncertainty about their previous calculations and the need for verification of their results.

copacetic
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A metric on C[0,1] is defined by:

[tex]d(f,g) = ( \int_0^1 \! (f(x) - g_t(x))^2 \, dx )^{1/2}[/tex]

Find t e R such that the distance between the functions [tex]f(x) = e^x - 1[/tex] and [tex]g_t(x) = t * x[/tex] is minimal.


Homework Equations


Given above


The Attempt at a Solution


The first thing I did was multiply the inner part of the integral out then evaluate it:
[tex]( \int_0^1 \! (e^x-1) - (tx))^2 dx )^{1/2}[/tex]

[tex]= ( \int_0^1 \! e^{2x} - 2e^x - 2te^xx + 1 + 2tx + t^2x^2 dx )^{1/2}[/tex]

[tex]= (\frac{1}{2}e^2-\frac{1}{2} - (2e - 2) - 2t(e) + 1 + 2t(\frac{1}{2}) + t^2(\frac{1}{3}) )^{1/2}[/tex]

[tex]= ( \frac{1}{2}e^2 + \frac{5}{2} - 2et + t + \frac{1}{3}t^2)^{1/2}[/tex]

But I'm not sure I did that right, because now I don't know where to go from here. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So the distance between f and g depends on t. You might even say it's a function of t... do you know how to minimize a function that has only a single variable?
 
I would need to find the first derivative, find the roots and then check their sign in the second derivative. Can I do this without the square root around the entire function? Because with it the derivative is enormous and I'm not sure how I'd go about solving it for 0.
 
It's a pretty common technique to use that [tex]\sqrt{a}<\sqrt{b}[/tex] is true exactly when [tex]a<b[/tex] (assuming everything is positive here), so to minimize a function [tex]\sqrt{f(x)}[/tex] it's enough to minimize [tex]f(x)[/tex] itself (the same thing holds true for maximizing)

Even without using that though, by the chain rule the only difference is that you would have the function again in the denominator, and you can clear that out when you try to solve for the derivative equal to zero
 
You should not need to integrate- you find the derivative of a vector by differentiating and by the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus", the derivative of [itex]\int_a^x f(t)dt[/itex] is just f(x) itself.
 
HallsofIvy said:
You should not need to integrate- you find the derivative of a vector by differentiating and by the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus", the derivative of [itex]\int_a^x f(t)dt[/itex] is just f(x) itself.

This isn't really a fundamental theorem of calculus situation
 
Office_Shredder said:
It's a pretty common technique to use that [tex]\sqrt{a}<\sqrt{b}[/tex] is true exactly when [tex]a<b[/tex] (assuming everything is positive here), so to minimize a function [tex]\sqrt{f(x)}[/tex] it's enough to minimize [tex]f(x)[/tex] itself (the same thing holds true for maximizing)

Even without using that though, by the chain rule the only difference is that you would have the function again in the denominator, and you can clear that out when you try to solve for the derivative equal to zero
Ok thanks, in the end I have

[tex]\frac{2}{3}t - 2e + 1 = 0[/tex]

[tex]t = 3e - \frac{3}{2}[/tex]
 
copacetic said:
Ok thanks, in the end I have

[tex]\frac{2}{3}t - 2e + 1 = 0[/tex]

[tex]t = 3e - \frac{3}{2}[/tex]

Double check that. It looks like you are integrating x*e^x to get e. That's not right.
 
Dick said:
Double check that. It looks like you are integrating x*e^x to get e. That's not right.
Woops! You're right, I had x*e^x instead of x*e^x-e^x. Well that got rid of the nasty e now I'm left with t=3/2. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K