MHB Optimisation Problem (Global extreme points)

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the global extreme point of the function f(x) = e^(x-1) - x. The derivative f'(x) is set to zero, leading to the conclusion that x = 1 is a critical point, which is confirmed as a minimum by the second derivative test. The confusion arises from interpreting the term "minimizes f(x)," where it is clarified that this refers to the x-value at which the minimum occurs, not the minimum value itself. The minimum value of the function at this point is f(1) = -1. Thus, x = 1 is the correct point that minimizes the function.
Foosey96
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi there everyone, wonder if anyone can help as I'm a bit confused.
Ive been asked to find the global extreme point of f(x)=e^(x-1) - x.
I have checked my answer against the solution and am correct and my working is as follows:
f'(x) = e^(x-1) - 1 = 0. Therefore (x-1)=ln1 (which = 0) therefore x = 1.
f''(x) = e(x-1). sub in x=1 and f''(x) = 1 which is > 0 hence the extreme point is a minimum.
The solution however then goes on to conclude that x*=1 minimizes f(x)
This is what I am confused by as I thought minimum points by their nature were the y-values not the x values and hence x* should actually be e^(1-1) - 1 = 0 and so x*=0 minimizes f(x)??
Thanks for any help you can give that final conclusion has just thrown me off. Thanks everyone!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Foosey96 said:
Hi there everyone, wonder if anyone can help as I'm a bit confused.
Ive been asked to find the global extreme point of f(x)=e^(x-1) - x.
I have checked my answer against the solution and am correct and my working is as follows:
f'(x) = e^(x-1) - 1 = 0. Therefore (x-1)=ln1 (which = 0) therefore x = 1.
f''(x) = e(x-1). sub in x=1 and f''(x) = 1 which is > 0 hence the extreme point is a minimum.
The solution however then goes on to conclude that x*=1 minimizes f(x)
This is what I am confused by as I thought minimum points by their nature were the y-values not the x values and hence x* should actually be e^(1-1) - 1 = 0 and so x*=0 minimizes f(x)??
Thanks for any help you can give that final conclusion has just thrown me off. Thanks everyone!

What they said is correct. To say that x = 1 minimises f(x) is to say that when x = 1 IN the function, then the function value will be at its minimum.

Here the minimum value is f(1) = e^(1-1) - 1 = -1.
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K