Proof- Question about Rolle's Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter fireb
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on applying Rolle's Theorem to a differentiable curve represented by the vector function r: [a,b] -> R(3), where r(a) = r(b). The official solution defines a function f(t) = |r(t)|^2, demonstrating that f is differentiable and satisfies the conditions of Rolle's Theorem, leading to the conclusion that there exists a point t in [a,b] such that the derivative f'(t) = 0, which implies r(t) is orthogonal to r'(t). The initial response incorrectly interprets the concept of maxima in the context of a 3D space curve, leading to a misunderstanding of the theorem's application.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector functions in R(3)
  • Familiarity with Rolle's Theorem in calculus
  • Knowledge of differentiable functions and their properties
  • Basic concepts of orthogonality in vector calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Rolle's Theorem to vector functions
  • Explore the properties of differentiable functions in multiple dimensions
  • Learn about orthogonality and its implications in vector calculus
  • Review examples of space curves and their critical points
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, particularly those studying vector calculus and differential geometry, as well as educators seeking to clarify the application of Rolle's Theorem in higher dimensions.

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".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K