Proof that the line intersects the curve 3 times exactly

In summary, 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.
  • #1
Dank2
213
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
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
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).
 
  • #4
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:
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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 Dank2
  • #7
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
 
  • #8
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 Dank2
  • #9
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 Dank2
  • #11
Thread moved from Precalc section.
 

FAQ: Proof that the line intersects the curve 3 times exactly

1. How do you prove that a line intersects a curve 3 times exactly?

To prove that a line intersects a curve exactly 3 times, you must use a mathematical method such as the Intermediate Value Theorem or Rolle's Theorem. These theorems involve analyzing the behavior of the curve and the line within a given interval and proving that there must be 3 intersections based on the properties of the curve and line.

2. Can a line intersect a curve more than 3 times?

Yes, it is possible for a line to intersect a curve more than 3 times. The number of intersections depends on the shape and behavior of the curve and the position and slope of the line.

3. What if the line and curve do not intersect at all?

If the line and curve do not intersect at all, then the proof that the line intersects the curve 3 times exactly would not be valid. The proof relies on the existence of 3 intersections, so if there are none, the proof would be considered incorrect.

4. Can you give an example of a curve and line that intersect 3 times exactly?

One example of a curve and line that intersect 3 times exactly is the parabola y = x^2 and the line y = 2x. The intersections occur at the points (0,0), (1,1), and (-1,1).

5. Is it possible for a line to intersect a curve 3 times exactly without using any mathematical theorems?

No, to prove that a line intersects a curve 3 times exactly, some form of mathematical reasoning or theorem must be used. Simply visually counting the intersections may not be accurate and would not constitute a formal proof.

Similar threads

Back
Top