1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proof- Question about Rolle's Theorem

  1. Nov 19, 2009 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    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).

    2. Relevant equations



    3. 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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 19, 2009 #2

    LCKurtz

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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".
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Proof- Question about Rolle's Theorem
Loading...