Using Rolle's Theorem to Find the Zeros of a Function

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter surferbarney0729
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Rolle's Theorem in finding the zeros of a function, exploring both theoretical and numerical methods. Participants examine the implications of differentiability, turning points, and the nature of roots in various types of functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about using Rolle's Theorem to find zeros of a function and whether numerical methods exist for this purpose.
  • Another participant suggests that by identifying turning points and using the mean-value theorem, one can determine the existence of roots between those points, noting that a non-constant polynomial can have at most n roots, where n is the degree of the polynomial.
  • Some participants discuss the existence of complex roots, with one asserting that all functions have at least one complex root, while another counters this by providing an example of a function that has no real or complex roots.
  • Concerns are raised about the applicability of Rolle's Theorem to non-polynomial functions, with discussions on the necessity of checking for solutions where the derivative equals zero.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the mean-value theorem can be applied to find roots between turning points, but also notes that the original post did not specify the function type or differentiability conditions.
  • There is a suggestion to use binary search methods to locate roots between known roots of the derivative, while also considering the behavior of the function at infinity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of roots in various functions, particularly regarding complex roots and the applicability of Rolle's Theorem to non-polynomial functions. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on these points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the differentiability of functions and the conditions under which Rolle's Theorem applies. The discussion also highlights the distinction between polynomial and non-polynomial functions in the context of finding roots.

surferbarney0729
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I am curious if there is a way of using Rolle's theorem to determine the zero of a function? is there any numerical method for it?

I am familiar with the basics, When finding the zeros of a function the immediate thought it to set the function equal to zero and solve for x. If the function has more than one root, we know by Rolle's Theorem that the derivative of the function between the two roots must be 0.

However, does anyone have any ideas on this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming differentiability of a known function, we can find how many roots exist by finding the turning points as well as the second derivative of those turning points.

Using the mean-value theorem, we know that if we have two successive turning points with one below the x-axis and one above, then there exists a root between these turning points, (which is what this theorem is getting at).

At most for a non-constant function, we can only have at maximum n roots where n is the degree of the polynomial.

The reason to consider the second derivative is for inflection points: If we have a point of inflection like we get in say f(x) = x3 then it means that the function doesn't turn around but keeps going in the same direction in terms of the sign of the first derivative (i.e doesn't decrease from an increase or vice-versa, but instead keeps increasing or decreasing).

Using all of this information, you can say where the roots must lie if they exist (some functions don't have real roots, but everything does have at least one complex root) and then use the numerical schemes to get a good approximation for the actual root.
 
chiro said:
some functions don't have real roots, but everything does have at least one complex root
I've probably misinterpreted you, but surely you can't say that.
 
oay said:
I've probably misinterpreted you, but surely you can't say that.

No it's true. Consider the function f(x) = x^2 + 1. This function never crosses the x-axis and does not have any real roots. But it has two complex roots of i and -i, but no purely real roots.
 
chiro said:
No it's true. Consider the function f(x) = x^2 + 1. This function never crosses the x-axis and does not have any real roots. But it has two complex roots of i and -i, but no purely real roots.
Yes, I appreciate that. But y=1/x has neither real nor complex roots. As I said, I've obviously missed some proviso in what you're saying. Maybe I should read what you said again... it's getting very late where I am! :smile:
 
oay said:
Yes, I appreciate that. But y=1/x has neither real nor complex roots. As I said, I've obviously missed some proviso in what you're saying. Maybe I should read what you said again... it's getting very late where I am! :smile:

That's not a polynomial and doesn't have a solution for the derivative to be zero.

Of course you have to check if you get any solutions with the derivatives being equal to zero and in this case you do not.

The other thing is that this function is not a polynomial: it has a series expansion with a radii of convergence but it is not a polynomial.

We can differentiate this function from first principles and we can show that it will never have a root for the first derivative.
 
chiro said:
That's not a polynomial and doesn't have a solution for the derivative to be zero.

Of course you have to check if you get any solutions with the derivatives being equal to zero and in this case you do not.

The other thing is that this function is not a polynomial: it has a series expansion with a radii of convergence but it is not a polynomial.

We can differentiate this function from first principles and we can show that it will never have a root for the first derivative.
Absolutely agreed. I think I was being a bit too pedantic in what I was actually commenting on. :smile:
 
chiro said:
Using the mean-value theorem, we know that if we have two successive turning points with one below the x-axis and one above, then there exists a root between these turning points,
But that's true regardless of whether they're turning points. Also, the OP says nothing about polynomials or the function being twice differentiable..
What we do know from Rolle is that each pair of roots is separated by at least one root of f', so if you know the roots of f' then you know you only need to look for one root of f between consecutive pairs of roots of f'. Could do this by binary chop, e.g.
Also need to check for two more: one lower than the lowest root of f' and one higher than the highest. For those, can look at the asymptotic behaviour of f. E.g. if the highest root of f' is f'(a) = 0, and f(a)≠0, then f has a root > a iff f(a) and f(+∞) have opposite sign.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad In which sense(s) do square integrable functions go to zero at infinity?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Apparent counterexample to Cauchy-Goursat theorem (Complex Analysis)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Proving a function f is continuous given A U B = X
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Regarding dominated convergence theorem in Folland
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Undergrad Can Cauchy's Integral Formula be Used for Non-Analytic Functions?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad On the topological proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Undergrad Compact support functions and law of a random variable
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Undergrad Hausdorff dimension of Riemann zeta function assuming RH
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Laurent series for algebraic functions
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
MHB Using Rolle's theorem to prove for roots
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K