Proving that a certain closed interval exists

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Usagi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Closed Interval
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the existence of a certain closed interval related to a function \( f \) that is twice continuously differentiable on an open interval \( (a,b) \). Participants explore the implications of the function's properties, particularly the behavior of a derived function \( g \) and its derivative \( g' \), in relation to the existence of a closed interval \( I_1 \) contained within \( (a,b) \).

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the question may be missing a specification that \( x \) should be in \( I_1 \).
  • It is noted that \( g \) is continuously differentiable and that \( g'(c) = 0 \), suggesting that \( g' \) should be small in a neighborhood around \( c \).
  • Participants discuss the need for rigor in showing that the neighborhood around \( c \) is contained within \( (a,b) \).
  • There is a suggestion to use \( \epsilon-\delta \) arguments to establish the smallness of \( g' \) in the neighborhood of \( c \).
  • One participant asserts that if \( g' \) is bounded by \( 1/2 \) in a neighborhood of \( c \), then a smaller interval \( I_1 \) can be chosen to ensure this property holds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the properties of the function \( g \) and the implications of its derivative, but there is ongoing discussion about the rigor needed in the arguments and whether the neighborhood can be guaranteed to be contained within \( (a,b)$. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to formalize these arguments.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the need for clearer definitions of neighborhoods and the dependence on the properties of the function \( f \) and its derivatives. The discussion does not resolve how to rigorously apply \( \epsilon-\delta \) arguments in this context.

Usagi
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Let $a$, $b$ be reals and $f: (a,b) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be twice continuously differentiable. Assume that there exists $c \in (a,b)$ such that $f(c) = 0$ and that for any $x \in (a,b)$, $f'(x) \neq 0$. Define $g: (a,b) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $\displaystyle g(x) = x -\frac{f(x)}{f'(x)}$ and note that $g(c) = c$.

Deduce that there exists $\delta_1 >0$ such that $I_1 = [c -\delta_1, c+\delta_1]$ is contained in $I = (a,b)$ and for any $x$, $|g'(x)| \le 1/2$.

Query 1: Is the question missing a phrase after "for any $x$", should it say "for any $x \in I_1$"?

Query 2: My (incomplete) attempt so far: I've shown that $g(x)$ is differentiable on $I = (a,b)$ and has a continuous derivative on $I$ with $\displaystyle g'(x) = \frac{f(x) f''(x)}{[f'(x)]^2}$, also $g'(c) = 0$. Also, since we know that $(a,b)$ is an open set, then for any $c \in (a,b)$, let $\epsilon = \min\{c-a, b-c\}$ then clearly $(c-\epsilon, c+\epsilon) \subset I$. Now pick $\delta_1$ such that $0<\delta_1 <\epsilon$ and consider the closed interval $I_1 = [c-\delta_1, c+\delta_1]$. So $I_1 \subset (c-\epsilon, c+\epsilon)$ and hence $I_1$ is contained in $I$.

I am just not sure how to show that for any $x \in I_1$ (?), $|g'(x)| \le 1/2$. Maybe something to do with the Extreme Value Theorem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Query 1: Yes, I think that the question must refer to $I_1$.

Query 2: Your "incomplete attempt" is practically complete. You have shown that $g$ is continuously differentiable and that $g'( c ) = 0.$ If a continuous function is $0$ at $c$ then it must be small in some neighbourhood of $c$ ...
 
Thanks! However, how do you that this neighbourhood is contained in (a,b)?
 
Usagi said:
However, how do you that this neighbourhood is contained in (a,b)?
If it is not, make it smaller.
 
I understand this intuitively, but how can I make it rigorous using $\epsilon-\delta$ arguments?
 
Opalg said:
If a continuous function is $0$ at $c$ then it must be small in some neighbourhood of $c$ ...

Usagi said:
I understand this intuitively, but how can I make it rigorous using $\epsilon-\delta$ arguments?
It's a general fact that
\[
(\forall x\in A.\;P(x))\land B\subseteq A\implies\forall x\in B.\; P(x).
\]
You agreed that there exists a $\delta>0$ such that
\[
\forall x\in(c-\delta,c+\delta).\;|g'(x)|\le 1/2.
\]
There exists a $0<\delta_1<\min(\delta,c-a,b-c)\le\delta$ such that $[c-\delta_1,c+\delta_1]\subseteq (c-\delta,c+\delta)$. Therefore,
\[
\forall x\in[c-\delta_1,c+\delta_1].\;|g'(x)|\le 1/2.
\]
 
Ah yup, makes perfect sense, thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K