Proving the Existence of Fixed Points in Monotone Increasing Functions

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the existence of fixed points in monotone increasing functions, specifically when the derivative f'(x) is greater than or equal to 2. The user recognizes that since the function is monotone increasing, it is one-to-one, and fixed points occur where f(x) intersects the line y = x. They suggest using the Mean Value Theorem to establish that if f(x) is consistently greater or less than x, contradictions arise. By defining g(x) = f(x) - x and showing that g'(x) is always at least 1, they argue that g must cross zero due to its continuity and the presence of both positive and negative values. The user seeks clarification on a specific step in the proof related to the behavior of g at certain points.
zolit
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to work out how an existence of a fixed point is linked to the constraint on the differential of that function.

For example, i need to prove f has a fixed point if f'(x)=>2.

I understand that what I have is a monotone increasing function so it is 1-1. All the fixed points are on the line f(x) = x. So conceptually it must be true that these two lines should intersect somewhere, but I can't prove this rigorously.

I have a feeling I should be using the Mean Value Theorem ( f(b) - f(a)) = f'(c)(b-a) but can't get much further than that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You want to prove that there is some c such that f(c) = c. f is continuous on R (I'm guessing). Now you should be able to prove that there are contradictions if f(x) > x for all x, or f(x) < x. Then, by intermediate value theorem, you should be able to finish the proof.
 
let g(x) = f(x) - x. then you want to prove that g(x) = 0 has a solution for some x.

But you, know that g'(x) >= 1, so for every pair of successive integers a = n,b = n+1, it follows from MVT that g(b)-g(a) >= 1. Do you see why?

Hence if g(0) = c>0 say, and n < a < n+1, then g(-n-1) < 0. Do you see why?

then since g is differentiable it is also contrinuous, and has both a negative value and a positive value, hence is somewhere zero.

similar arguments work for g(0) = c<0.
 
I was reading through that proof, and I did not understand how

"Hence if g(0) = c>0 say, and n < a < n+1, then g(-n-1) < 0" this step came to be?
thanx
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K