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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the existence of a closed interval \( I_1 = [c - \delta_1, c + \delta_1] \) within an open interval \( I = (a, b) \) for a twice continuously differentiable function \( f \) with a root at \( c \). The function \( g(x) = x - \frac{f(x)}{f'(x)} \) is defined, and it is established that \( g(c) = c \) and \( |g'(x)| \leq \frac{1}{2} \) for \( x \in I_1 \). The proof utilizes the properties of continuous functions and the Extreme Value Theorem to ensure that \( g'(x) \) remains bounded in the neighborhood of \( c \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus, specifically derivatives and continuity.
  • Familiarity with the Extreme Value Theorem.
  • Knowledge of \( \epsilon-\delta \) definitions in analysis.
  • Concept of differentiable functions and their properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of continuous functions and their derivatives in detail.
  • Learn about the application of the Extreme Value Theorem in proving bounds on functions.
  • Explore \( \epsilon-\delta \) arguments in rigorous mathematical proofs.
  • Investigate the implications of the Mean Value Theorem in relation to differentiable functions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of continuity and differentiability in function theory.

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