Why is continuity necessary before applying the Extreme Value Theorem?

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this problem,
1683578649458.png

Why cannot we say that ##f(2.999999999) ≥ f(x)## and therefore absolute max at f(2.99999999999999) (without reasoning from the extreme value theorem)?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
Homework Statement: Please see below
Relevant Equations: Please see below

For this problem,
View attachment 326186
Why cannot we say that ##f(2.999999999) ≥ f(x)## and therefore absolute max at f(2.99999999999999) (without reasoning from the extreme value theorem)?

Many thanks!
We get always a higher value with every 9 we add.

3 is a supremum (lowest higher boundary) of the function, but not a maximum (highest value).
 
  • Like
Likes Grelbr42, WWGD and member 731016
ChiralSuperfields said:
Why cannot we say that ##f(2.999999999) ≥ f(x)## and therefore absolute max at f(2.99999999999999) (without reasoning from the extreme value theorem)?
You are confusing the function value with a value in the domain. 2.9999999 is not even in the domain.

With that correction, your question becomes "Why cannot we say that ##f(0.999999999) ≥ f(x)##?
Note that there are values of x closer to 1 than 0.99999999, so for those x-values, f(x) > f(0999999999).
In case you aren't aware, the extreme value theorem doesn't apply here, as far as a maximum value is concerned. The necessary condition is that the function must be continuous on a closed bounded interval. The graph of the left branch of the function is continuous only on the half-open interval [0, 1) and is discontinuous at x = 1.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
What part of the problem states that the Extreme Value Theorem is required to prove the problem statements? This example shows that continuity is required before the Extreme Value Theorem can be applied. I suspect that you have misunderstood the point of the example.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top