Proving Contraction Constants: Mean Value Theorem Help | Homework Example

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the composite function of two contractions, h2 and h1, is also a contraction on a set B, utilizing the Mean Value Theorem. The participants confirm that the contraction constants δ1 and δ2 can be used to establish a contraction constant for the composite function h2 ° h1. The key inequality derived is |h2(h1(a)) - h2(h1(b))| ≤ δ2|h1(a) - h1(b)|, which leads to the conclusion that the composite function retains the contraction property. The necessity of using derivatives is debated, with some participants suggesting that it may not be essential for this proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of contraction mappings and contraction constants
  • Familiarity with the Mean Value Theorem
  • Knowledge of the chain rule in calculus
  • Basic principles of inequalities in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the Mean Value Theorem in proving properties of composite functions
  • Explore the implications of contraction mappings in metric spaces
  • Review the chain rule and its role in differentiating composite functions
  • Investigate examples of contraction constants in various mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students studying advanced calculus, mathematicians interested in functional analysis, and anyone looking to understand the properties of contraction mappings in mathematical proofs.

Easty
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If h1 and h2 are contractions on a set B with contraction constants δ1 and δ2 prove that the composite function h2 ° h 1 is also a contraction on B and find a contraction constant.


Homework Equations




|f(a) - f(b)| ≤ δ |a-b|

f '(c) = (f(a)-f(b))/(a-b)


(g°f) '(c) = g '(f(c))x f '(c)


The Attempt at a Solution



So far I'm pretty sure i have to use the mean value theorem and the chain rule. using the mean value on the composite function i get :

|h2(h1(a)) - h2(h1(b))| = |h2 °h1 )' (c)| |a-b|

i get stuck here, i think i should now use the chain rule for the derivaitve term out the front of the equality to somehow make an inequality. am i on the right track?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


I don't see why you should use derivatives at all. If h(x)= h_2(h_1(x)) then |h(a)- h(b)|= |h_2(h_1(a))- h_2(h_1(b))|\le \delta_2|h_1(a)- h_1(b)| and repeat.
 


HallsofIvy said:
I don't see why you should use derivatives at all. If h(x)= h_2(h_1(x)) then |h(a)- h(b)|= |h_2(h_1(a))- h_2(h_1(b))|\le \delta_2|h_1(a)- h_1(b)| and repeat.


but then arent you assumeing that h(x)= h_2(h_1(x)) is a contration?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K