Using Rolles Theorem on F(x)=x^2+3x on [0,2]

  • Thread starter Thread starter physics_ash82
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Rolle's Theorem applies to the function F(x) = x² + 3x on the interval [0, 2] because the function is continuous and differentiable. The theorem states that if F(a) = F(b), there exists at least one point c in (a, b) where F'(c) = 0. The discussion clarifies that the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) is a broader application, but both theorems derive from the fundamental property of continuity in functions. The user initially confused the two theorems but corrected their understanding with community feedback.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus concepts, specifically derivatives
  • Familiarity with Rolle's Theorem and the Mean Value Theorem
  • Knowledge of continuous and differentiable functions
  • Ability to compute derivatives of polynomial functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the formal statement and proof of Rolle's Theorem
  • Learn the applications of the Mean Value Theorem in real-world problems
  • Explore the implications of continuity and differentiability in calculus
  • Practice solving problems involving critical points and local extrema
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of fundamental theorems in differential calculus.

physics_ash82
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Ok I think I can use Rolles theorem on F(x)=x^2+3x on the inteval [ 0,2]
because the derivative can be defined
so then I think I use the formula [f(b)-f(a)] / [b-a] to find f'(c), then set f'(c) = F'(x) and solve is this process right?:shy:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you even trying to prove?
 
It seems you're using the mean value theorem, which is the one you listed. Rolle's theorem says that if f(a)=f(b) on some closed interval, then there must be some point c such that f'(c)=0.
 
rolles theorem is a trivial consequence of the obvious (but deep) fact that a continuous function f which takes the same value twice must have a local extremum in between.

then rolle says if f is also differentiable, the derivative is zero there.

the MVT is then a further trivial consequence of rolle.

i.e. both rolle and MVT are trivial, but useful consequences of one deep result about continuity.

my point is that the emphasis on these two as big time theorems is quite misplaced.

even their statements take away something from the result, since just knowing the derivative is zero somewhere in between two points is decidedly weaker than knowing there is a local extremum.

for instance the statement of rolles theorem does not imply that between two critical points of a continuously differentiable function there must be a flex, but the stronger result does.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the replys

I had seen my error after my post I was using the mean value theorem instead of rolles theorem opps:blushing: thanks for the replys though
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K