Proof- Question about Rolle's Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter fireb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
fireb
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider a differentiable curve r: [a,b]-> R(3) such that r(a)= r(b). show that there is a value t belongs [a,b] such that r(t) is orthogonal to r(prime)(t).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



My answer: Since r(a)= r(b) the curve must reach a max/min point somewhere in [a,b] then there is a value r(prime) = 0. so r(t) dot r(prime)(t)=0 .

Official answer: Define f(t)= |r(t)|^2 then f is a differentiable function of one function with derivative =[2r(t)] r(prime)(t).
since f(a)= f(b), by rolle's theorem there is a point t belongs [a,b] such that f(prime) is 0. Therefore r(t) dot r(prime)(t) = 0.

Am I completely wrong? It seems like pretty much the same answer to me... can someone explain to me the difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The most glaring problem with your answer is that there is no meaning to a "maximum" for a space curve twisting through 3d space. Your r(t) is a vector function. So, yes, you are "completely wrong".
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top