Proof that the line intersects the curve 3 times exactly

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the line intersects the curve three times exactly. The functions involved are p(x) = 0.2*(x-1)^5 and q(x) = 4x-6, with participants exploring the implications of their differences and derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the difference h(x) = p(x) - q(x) and its derivative h'(x). Some express confusion about the relevance of finding stationary points versus zeros of h(x). Others suggest that using derivatives may help in understanding the maximum number of intersections.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between the zeros of h(x) and its derivative h'(x). Some participants have proposed using Rolle's theorem to argue about the maximum number of intersections, while others are questioning the clarity of the original problem statement and the methods being employed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need to prove not just the maximum number of intersections but also the exact number of intersections, indicating a deeper exploration of the problem's requirements.

Dank2
Messages
213
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


p(x) = 0.2*(x-1)^5,
q(x) = 4x-6

The Attempt at a Solution


I took the diffrence h(x) = p(x) - q(x)
h'(x) = ((x-1)^4) - 4
got two solutions for h'(x)=0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dank2 said:

Homework Statement


p(x) = 0.2*(x-1)^5,
q(x) = 4x-6

The Attempt at a Solution


I took the diffrence h(x) = p(x) - q(x)
h'(x) = ((x-1)^4) - 4
got two solutions for h'(x)=0.

I believe you are doing something wrong here. You have to prove that the line ## y_1 = 4x - 6## intersects with ##y_2 = \frac{1}{5}(x-1)^5##. What does this mean? You have to find the points ##x## for which ##y_1## = ##y_2##. Thus, we set ##y_1 = y_2## and solve for ##x##.

##y_1 = y_2##
##\iff y_1 - y_2 = 0##
##\iff 4x - 6 - (\frac{1}{5}(x-1)^5)= 0##

There's no need to use derivatives! (In your notation, you have to find the points ##x## such that ##h(x) = 0##, not ##h'(x) = 0##). Can you continue from here?
 
Dank2 said:

Homework Statement


p(x) = 0.2*(x-1)^5,
q(x) = 4x-6

The Attempt at a Solution


I took the diffrence h(x) = p(x) - q(x)
h'(x) = ((x-1)^4) - 4
got two solutions for h'(x)=0.

What does this have to do with the original question? Finding the stationary points of h(x) is not the same thing as finding the zeros of h(x).
 
Math_QED said:
I believe you are doing something wrong here. You have to prove that the line ## y_1 = 4x - 6## intersects with ##y_2 = \frac{1}{5}(x-1)^5##. What does this mean? You have to find the points ##x## for which ##y_1## = ##y_2##. Thus, we set ##y_1 = y_2## and solve for ##x##.

##y_1 = y_2##
##\iff y_1 - y_2 = 0##
##\iff 4x - 6 - (\frac{1}{5}(x-1)^5)= 0##

There's no need to use derivatives! (In your notation, you have to find the points ##x## such that ##h(x) = 0##). Can you continue from here?
cant get clean solutions
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ray Vickson said:
What does this have to do with the original question? Finding the stationary points of h(x) is not the same thing as finding the zeros of h(x).
maybe i can conclude about the max solutions that is possible. if only at two points h'(x) = 0 , then intuitively i can see why there can't be more than 3 solutions. can't see how to proof it though.
 
Dank2 said:
cant get clean solutions
Dank2 said:
maybe i can conclude about the max solutions that is possible. if only at two points h'(x) = 0 , then intuitively i can see why there can't be more than 3 solutions. can't see how to proof it though.

Ah, now I see what you are doing. You should write this out explicitly in the first post. Yes, it might be impossible to find the zeros of the difference between those 2 functions.

But, you are thinking in the right track when you suggest using derivatives! Do you know about Rolle's theorem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolle's_theorem
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dank2
Math_QED said:
Ah, now I see what you are doing. You should write this out explicitly in the first post. But, you are thinking in the right track then! Do you know about Rolle's theorem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolle's_theorem
yes how can i use it here
 
Dank2 said:
yes how can i use it here

Suppose there are more than 3 zeros and use the fact that there are only 2 zeros for the derivative to derive a contradiction with Rolle's theorem.

EDIT: I have to add that, with this approach, you only proved that it has a maximum of 3 zeros. You also need to prove that it has exactly 3 zeros.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dank2
Math_QED said:
Suppose there are more than 3 zeros and use the fact that there are only 2 zeros for the derivative to derive a contradiction with Rolle's theorem.

EDIT: I have to add that, with this approach, you only proved that it has a maximum of 3 zeros. You also need to prove that it has exactly 3 zeros.
thanks
 
  • #10
Dank2 said:
yes how can i use it here

If h'(x) has two zeros it is possible that h(x) also has only two (real) zeros: one isolated zero, and one zero of multiplicity two. (Of course, one can check that this example will not exhibit that behavior, because one can check that no stationary point is a (double) zero of h(x).) However, the argument certainly does eliminate the possibility of more than 3 zeros.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dank2
  • #11
Thread moved from Precalc section.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
2K