Show that there is a 1-km section that he covers in 1.5 minutes

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Section
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating that a cyclist covering 80 km in 2 hours has a 1-km section of the journey that is traversed in exactly 1.5 minutes. The conversation explores mathematical concepts related to continuity, derivatives, and the mean value theorem, focusing on the implications of these concepts in the context of the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose defining a function $\phi: K \to T$ to represent the relationship between distance and time, with boundary conditions $\phi(0)=0$ and $\phi(80\,\text{km})=120\,\text{minutes}$.
  • Others argue that the function provided is merely an example and that the actual function is unknown, emphasizing the need for it to be increasing.
  • There is a suggestion to apply the mean value theorem to find a point where the derivative $\phi'(y)=1.5\,\frac{\text{minute}}{\text{km}}$.
  • Participants discuss the continuity of the inverse function and its relevance to applying the mean value theorem.
  • Some express confusion about the implications of the derivative of $\phi$ and how it relates to the distance covered in a specific time.
  • It is noted that the continuity of the inverse function is necessary to ensure that there exists a point where the cyclist travels at the rate of 1.5 minutes per km.
  • One participant concludes that the derivative indicates a location in the trajectory where the cyclist traverses 1 km in 1.5 minutes.
  • There is a clarification that the choice of function $\phi$ directly relates to the length of the section being analyzed.
  • Finally, it is mentioned that the cyclist's continuous forward motion implies that the distance function is continuously differentiable, supporting the application of the inverse function theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the definitions and implications of the mathematical functions involved, with some agreement on the application of the mean value theorem and the continuity of the inverse function. However, there remains uncertainty and confusion regarding the specifics of the function and its properties.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the continuity and differentiability of the functions involved, which are not fully resolved. The exact form of the function $\phi$ remains unspecified, and participants rely on theoretical properties rather than concrete examples.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :giggle:

A cyclist, constantly driving forward, covers a distance of $80$ km in exactly $2$ hours. Show that there is a $1$-kilometer section of this journey that he covers in exactly $1.5$ minutes.
Hint: Continuity of the inverse function.

So we have to define a function $\phi :T\rightarrow K, \ x\mapsto \frac{120x}{80}$, where $T$ is the set of time and $K$ is the set of kilometer. Or can we not just define the function like that?

Then we want to show that there is a $y$ such that $\phi (y)=1,5$ and that $y=1$, right?

:unsure:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey mathmari!

I think you mean a function $\phi: K \to T$, where $K$ is the set of distances and $T$ is the set of times, with the boundary conditions $\phi(0)=0$ and $\phi(80\,\text{km})=120\,\text{minutes}$, and it is an increasing function.
We don't know what that function is. The function you gave is just an example of what it could be. 🤔

Then we would want to show that there is an $y$ such that $\phi'(y)=1.5\,\frac{\text{minute}}{\text{km}}$. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
I think you mean a function $\phi: K \to T$, where $K$ is the set of distances and $T$ is the set of times, with the boundary conditions $\phi(0)=0$ and $\phi(80\,\text{km})=120\,\text{minutes}$, and it is an increasing function.
We don't know what that function is. The function you gave is just an example of what it could be. 🤔

Then we would want to show that there is an $y$ such that $\phi'(y)=1.5\,\frac{\text{minute}}{\text{km}}$. 🤔

Ahh! :geek:

It holds that : If $f(x)$ is continuous on its domain, and a injective function, then $f^{-1}$ is a function that is also continuous on its domain.
But do we have information to show that?
Given the values $\phi(0)=0$ and $\phi(80)=120$ it seems like IVT, but I don't think that it helps us here..

Could you give me a hint?

:unsure:
 
How about the mean value theorem instead? 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
How about the mean value theorem instead? 🤔

Then we get that there is a c in $(0,120)$ such that $\phi '(c) =\frac{\phi(120)-\phi(0)}{120-0}=\frac{80}{120}$.

How is this relates to the inverse function?
 
mathmari said:
Then we get that there is a c in $(0,120)$ such that $\phi '(c) =\frac{\phi(120)-\phi(0)}{120-0}=\frac{80}{120}$.

Don't we have $c$ in $(0,\,80\,\text{km})$ and $\phi(80\,\text{km})=120\,\text{minutes}$? 🤔

mathmari said:
How is this relates to the inverse function?
$\phi$ is the inverse function of the usual distance as function of time, isn't it? :unsure:
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Don't we have $c$ in $(0,\,80\,\text{km})$ and $\phi(80\,\text{km})=120\,\text{minutes}$? 🤔

Oh yes... We have \begin{equation*}\phi '(c)={\frac {\phi (80)-\phi (0)}{80-0}}={\frac {120-0}{80-0}}={\frac {120}{80}}={\frac {120}{80}}=1.5\end{equation*}
Klaas van Aarsen said:
$\phi$ is the inverse function of the usual distance as function of time, isn't it? :unsure:

Yes. But we have that the derivative at $x_0$ is equal to $1.5$. :unsure:
 
mathmari said:
Yes. But we have that the derivative at $x_0$ is equal to $1.5$.
Indeed. So we're using the continuity of the inverse of the distance function, combined with the fact that it's differentiable. 🤔
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
Indeed. So we're using the continuity of the inverse of the distance function, combined with the fact that it's differentiable. 🤔

I am confused about that right now. So do we use the formula of the derivative of the inverse function? :unsure:
 
  • #10
mathmari said:
I am confused about that right now. So do we use the formula of the derivative of the inverse function?
What do you mean by the formula of the derivative? 🤔

We're using the formula of the mean value theorem. 🤔
 
  • #11
Klaas van Aarsen said:
What do you mean by the formula of the derivative? 🤔

We're using the formula of the mean value theorem. 🤔

Yes, by the mean value theorem we have shown that there is a $y$ such that $\phi'(y)=1.5$.

But what does this mean? I am confused that we have now the derivative of $\phi$ :unsure:
 
  • #12
mathmari said:
Yes, by the mean value theorem we have shown that there is a $y$ such that $\phi'(y)=1.5$.

But what does this mean? I am confused that we have now the derivative of $\phi$
It means that there is a location in the trajectory that we traverse with $1.5$ minutes per km.
Put otherwise, there is a section of 1 km that takes 1.5 minutes. 🤔
 
  • #13
Klaas van Aarsen said:
It means that there is a location in the trajectory that we traverse with $1.5$ minutes per km.
Put otherwise, there is a section of 1 km that takes 1.5 minutes. 🤔

How do we see that the section is of length 1 km ?

But why do we need the continuity of the inverse function?

:unsure:
 
  • #14
mathmari said:
How do we see that the section is of length 1 km ?

Because that is how we choose our function $\phi$.
The derivative is supposed to represent the time it takes to complete a section of 1 km as function of distance. 🤔

mathmari said:
But why do we need the continuity of the inverse function?
To apply the mean value theorem.
Otherwise the function could jump so that there isn't a point where we drive 1.5 minute/km. 🤔
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Klaas van Aarsen said:
To apply the mean value theorem.
Otherwise the function could jump so that there isn't a point where we drive 1.5 minute/km. 🤔

So we can use the derivative, i.e. we know that $\phi$ is differentiable because of the continuity of the inverse function ? :unsure:
 
  • #16
mathmari said:
So we can use the derivative, i.e. we know that $\phi$ is differentiable because of the continuity of the inverse function ?
It is given that we continuously drive forward.
That means that the distance as function of time is continuously differentiable everywhere with a positive derivative (positive velocity).
The inverse function theorem tells us that the inverse of the distance function (which we called $\phi$) is then also continuously differentiable everywhere. 🤔
 
  • #17
Klaas van Aarsen said:
It is given that we continuously drive forward.
That means that the distance as function of time is continuously differentiable everywhere with a positive derivative (positive velocity).
The inverse function theorem tells us that the inverse of the distance function (which we called $\phi$) is then also continuously differentiable everywhere. 🤔

I got it now! Thanks! :geek:
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
3K