Use Rolle's theorem to show repeated root has zero gradient

In summary, Rolle's theorem states that if a real-valued function f meets certain conditions on a closed interval, then there exists at least one point within that interval where the derivative of f is equal to zero. However, this theorem cannot be applied if the interval is degenerate or if the function is not a polynomial. The definition of a repeated root for a function is when the function can be written as a product with a maximum exponent greater than one, and in this case the repeated root would be the value where the derivative of the function is also equal to zero. Using this definition, it is possible to prove the existence of a repeated root by taking the derivative of the function
  • #1
679
30
Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 1.42.37 am.png


Is this an abuse of Rolle's theorem?

Rolle's theorem
If a real-valued function f is continuous on a proper closed interval [a, b], differentiable on the open interval (a, b), and f(a) = f(b), then there exists at least one c in the open interval (a, b) such that f'(c) = 0.

##[x_1, x_1]##, which means ##x_1\leq x\leq x_1##, is not an interval but a point. And ##(x_1, x_1)##, which means ##x_1<x<x_1##, doesn't make sense. So how can we apply Rolle's theorem?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ok, treat the point as an interval, [itex][ x_1,x_1][/itex] then the open interval [itex](x_1,x_1)[/itex], its interior, is the empty set[itex]\emptyset[/itex]. It's perfectly sensible, just trivial. Note the term "proper" as applied to the closed interval in the hypothesis of Rolle's theorem, your example is not a proper closed interval (a<b) but rather a "degenerate" one. Failing to satisfy the premise, the theorem cannot be applied.
 
  • Like
Likes Happiness
  • #3
How does your textbook define "repeated root"?
 
  • #4
Erland said:
How does your textbook define "repeated root"?

Suppose ##f(x)=A(x-\alpha_1)^{m_1}(x-\alpha_2)^{m_2}...(x-\alpha_r)^{m_r}##, where ##\alpha_i##'s are complex and ##m_i##'s are integers. If ##m_i>1##, then ##\alpha_i## is repeated root of ##f(x)##.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Happiness said:
Suppose ##f(x)=A(x-\alpha_1)^{m_1}(x-\alpha_2)^{m_2}...(x-\alpha_r)^{m_r}##, where ##\alpha_i##'s are complex and ##m_i##'s are integers. If ##m_i>1##, then ##\alpha_i## is repeated root of ##f(x)##.

if the exercise assumes that f(x) is of the above form then you don't need Rolle's theorem to prove it, you just take the derivative of f(x) (derivative of a product) which will be ##f'(x)=Am_1(x-a_1)^{m_1-1}g(x)+A(x-a_1)^{m_1}g'(x)## where it is easy to see that for example ##a_1## will be root of ##f'(x)## if ##m_1-1>=1##

##g(x)## is the rest of the product besides the first term
 
  • #6
Delta² said:
if the exercise assumes that f(x) is of the above form then you don't need Rolle's theorem to prove it, you just take the derivative of f(x) (derivative of a product) which will be ##f'(x)=Am_1(x-a_1)^{m_1-1}g(x)+A(x-a_1)^m_1g'(x)## where it is easy to see that for example ##a_1## will be root of ##f'(x)## if ##m_1-1>=1##

True. The question does not restrict ##f(x)## to be just polynomials. But at the same time the book does not provide a definition of a repeated root for functions that are not polynomials.
 
  • #7
Then you're lost. What chance do you have to define multiple roots if neither by differentiating nor by terms of the form ##(x-a)^m##? The proposed proof is still valid even if ##f## isn't a polynomial, as long as the root term is a factor.
Read another book.

Edit: What would a multiple root ##0## in ##x sinx ## be?
 
  • #8
I guess we should take as granted a definition like that f is of the form ##f(x)=(x-a_1)^{m_1}g(x)## where ##g(x)## is some other not necessarily polynomial function. Using that definition we ll have to prove using Rolle's theorem that ##a_1## is root of ##f'(x)## if ##m_1>1##...

Well we can do it without using Rolle's theorem as I showed in my earlier post just with the extra assumption that g is differentiable at ##x=a_1##.

Really can't think at the moment how to properly use Rolle's theorem for this...
 
  • #9
I think the idea should be something like this: If we have two distinct roots ##x_1## and ##x_2##, Rolle's theorem gives a point ##x_3## between ##x_1## and ##x_2## such that ##f'(x_3)=0##. Now, if we let ##x_1## and ##x_2## approach each other, so that in the limit we have a repeated root ##x_1=x_2##, ##x_3## is also approaching this common point, so that in the limit, ##f'(x_1)=f'(x_2)=f'(x_3)=0##.

But can this argument be made rigorous? I doubt it. I agree that it probably is abuse of Rolle's theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
Edit: What would a multiple root ##0## in ##x sinx ## be?

The root 0 is a double root and the other (non-zero) roots ##n\pi## are single roots?
 
  • #11
Erland said:
I agree that it probably is abuse of Rolle's theorem.
At least it reads like simply calculating the limit in differences called differentiation.
 
  • #12
Happiness said:
The root 0 is a double root and the other (non-zero) roots ##n\pi## are single roots?
Yes, but how is "double root" here defined? That is the crucial point in the whole discussion. As long as it's not clear we could debate for weeks.
 
  • #13
fresh_42 said:
Yes, but how is "double root" here defined? That is the crucial point in the whole discussion. As long as it's not clear we could debate for weeks.

I think the generalized definition of a repeated root is as follows:

Write the function ##f(x)## in the form ##f(x)=A(x-\alpha_1)^{m_1}(x-\alpha_2)^{m_2}...(x-\alpha_r)^{m_r}g(x)##, where ##\alpha_i##'s are complex, ##m_i##'s are integers and ##g(x)## is 1 or a power series around the center 0. If (for a particular ##i##) the maximum ##m_i## that can be achieved by factoring out ##(x-\alpha_i)## from the power series is more than 1, then ##\alpha_i## is a repeated root of ##f(x)##.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Usually one speaks of roots when polynomials are considered. Otherwise it's simply zeros. (I could be wrong and it's different in English, but to my best knowledge the term root reflects on zeros of polynomials only. So my previous question about ##x sin x## has been already misleading.) Then, in the definition above, you will get poles as well as roots if integer exponents are allowed. I agree on what Erland has said. It looks like an abuse of the theorem of Rolle to simply calculate ##\lim_{x_1 → x_2} \frac{f(x_2)-f(x_1)}{x_2 - x_1}, ## i.e. the derivation at ##x_2##. The most general way might be to define a zero ##\alpha## as double zero, if ##f(x)## can be written ##g(x) \cdot h(x)## and ##g(α) = h(α) = 0## or by power series. And one has to assume differentiability at ##α## anyway, so why not differentiate ##f = gh##?
 
  • #15
About zeros and roots. I learned that functions (may) have zeros and that equations (may) have roots.
So, if f(a)=0, then a is zero of the function f(x) and a root of the equation f(x)=0. Some times, authors blur this distiction, which I don't like.
 
  • Like
Likes Happiness
  • #16
fresh_42 said:
Then, in the definition above, you will get poles as well as roots if integer exponents are allowed.

The definition above leads to some weird result.

##f(x)=\frac{1}{1-x}=1+x+x^2+x^3+...##
##=(1+x)+x^2(1+x)+x^4(1+x)+...##
##=(1+x)(1+x^2+x^4+...)##

Then, by the definition, ##x=-1## is a "root" of ##f(x)##. But it's neither a root nor a pole.
 
  • #17
Don't mess around with groupings of divergent series. This will lead to unpleasant discussions. :wink:
 
  • #18
fresh_42 said:
Don't mess around with groupings of divergent series. This will lead to unpleasant discussions. :wink:

If we can't rearrange the terms in a divergent power series, then how do we factor out the ##(x-\alpha_i)##'s to obtain the poles that you mentioned? If we can't factor them out, then doesn't it mean we will only get roots and not poles?
 
  • #19
Simply stay inside the radius of convergence. Around the zeros the series will probably converge.
 
  • #20
fresh_42 said:
Simply stay inside the radius of convergence. Around the zeros the series will probably converge.

Could you give an example of how the above definition allows us to obtain the values of poles?

It seems like it's not possible, at least for rational functions. Consider ##f(x)=\frac{1}{a-x}##, which has a pole at ##x=a##.

##f(x)=\frac{1}{a}\frac{1}{1-\frac{x}{a}}=\frac{1}{a}[1+\frac{x}{a}+(\frac{x}{a})^2+...]##

If the above definition give rise to roots, we must be able to factor out ##(x-a)## but when ##x=a##, the power series on the RHS is divergent and we can't rearrange the terms. So it seems we can't get the poles by using the above definition.
 
  • #21
Sorry, I didn't catch your "factoring out" part of your definition.
 

What is Rolle's theorem?

Rolle's theorem is a fundamental theorem in calculus that states that if a function is continuous on a closed interval and differentiable on the open interval, and if the function takes the same value at the endpoints of the interval, then there exists at least one point within the interval where the derivative of the function is equal to zero.

How is Rolle's theorem used to show repeated root has zero gradient?

To show that a repeated root of a function has a zero gradient, we first apply Rolle's theorem to the function. This means that there exists at least one point within the interval where the derivative of the function is equal to zero. Since the repeated root appears at both endpoints of the interval, the function must have the same value at both endpoints, and therefore, the derivative at both points is also equal to zero. This means that the gradient at the repeated root must also be equal to zero.

Can Rolle's theorem be applied to any function with a repeated root?

No, Rolle's theorem can only be applied to functions that satisfy the conditions of the theorem, which include being continuous on a closed interval and differentiable on the open interval. If a function does not meet these conditions, then Rolle's theorem cannot be applied to show that a repeated root has a zero gradient.

What is the significance of a zero gradient at a repeated root?

A zero gradient at a repeated root of a function indicates that the function has a horizontal tangent line at that point. This means that the function is not changing at that point and is either at a maximum, minimum, or a point of inflection. It can also be interpreted as the rate of change of the function being zero at that point.

Are there any real-world applications of Rolle's theorem?

Yes, Rolle's theorem has various real-world applications, such as in optimization problems in economics and engineering, where finding the point with a zero gradient can help identify the maximum or minimum value of a function. It is also used in the proof of the mean value theorem, which has applications in physics and engineering.

Suggested for: Use Rolle's theorem to show repeated root has zero gradient

Replies
5
Views
661
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
763
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
641
Replies
22
Views
2K
Back
Top