Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: verification of rolle's theorem

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1

    verification of rolle's theorem

    Verify rolle's theorem for |x| in [-1 1]
    Last edited by ramya; 08-11-2013 at 09:09 AM. Reason: wrong spelling

  2. #2
    Elite Member stapel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,446

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by ramya View Post
    Verify rolle's theorem for |x| in [-1 1]
    Rolle's Theorem states as follows:

    Suppose [tex]f(x)[/tex] is a function that satisfies all of the following:

    1. [tex]f(x)[/tex] is continuous on the closed interval [tex]\,[a,\, b] [/tex]
    2. [tex]f(x)[/tex] is differentiable on the open interval [tex]\,(a,\, b)[/tex]
    3. [tex]f(a)\, =\, f(b)[/tex]

    Then there is a number [tex]\,c\,[/tex] such that [tex]\,a\, <\, c\, <\, b\,[/tex] and [tex]\,f'(c)\, =\, 0.[/tex] Or, in other words [tex]\,f(x)\,[/tex] has a critical point in [tex]\,(a,\, b)[/tex].
    I will assume that the exercise actually told you to work with something like "[tex]f(x)\, =\, |\,x\,|[/tex]" on the given interval.

    That said, how far have you gotten in applying the formulaic statement of the Theorem? In particular, what did you do with part (2) of the above statement?

  3. #3

    Not differentiable

    The graph of mod(x) has a sharp turn at x=0 which means we can not draw a unique tangent at that point. This makes it non- differentiable at that point.

    Aliter: the differential of mod(x) = mod (x) / x , wherever it is defined. This can be proved from first principles. This differential is undefined at x=0.

    Hence, Rolle's theorem can not be applied.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Giridhar View Post
    The graph of mod(x) has a sharp turn at x=0 which means we can not draw a unique tangent at that point. This makes it non- differentiable at that point.

    Aliter : the differential of mod(x) = mod (x) / x , wherever it is defined. This can be proved from first principles. This differential is undefined at x=0.

    Hence, Rolle's theorem can not be applied.
    .


    I don't know what those words and that one phrase (that I highlighted in bold) mean in the context of your post.



    If f(x) = mod(x) is supposed to be the absolute value function, [tex] \ \ \ \ \ \ \ [/tex] Edit: Please see the post directly below mine.


    If f(x) = |x|, [tex] \ \ [/tex] then f'(x) = x/|x|



    Here are some supporting steps:



    f(x) [tex] = |x| \ \ \ \implies[/tex]



    [tex]f(x) = \sqrt{x^2} \ \ \ \implies [/tex]



    [tex]f(x) = (x^2)^{\frac{1}{2}} [/tex]



    f'(x) [tex] \ = \ \frac{1}{2}(x^2)^{ \frac{-1}{2}}(2x) \ \ \ \implies \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ [/tex] (There is a faint "-1" in the fractional exponent -1/2.)


    [tex] f'(x) \ = \ \dfrac{x}{(x^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \ \ \ \implies[/tex]


    [tex]f'(x) \ = \ \dfrac{x}{|x|} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ [/tex]Edit: Please see the post directly below mine.
    Last edited by lookagain; 08-13-2013 at 01:00 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by lookagain View Post
    If f(x) = mod(x) is supposed to be the absolute value function, then f'(x) does not equal (mod(x))/x. It's the "flip" of it.


    If f(x) = |x|, [tex] \ \ [/tex] then f'(x) = x/|x|
    But [tex]\dfrac{x}{|x|} \equiv \dfrac{|x|}{x}[/tex]

    for any [tex]x \ne 0[/tex], and is undefined if [tex]x = 0[/tex]
    DrPhil (not the TV guy)
    If we knew what we were doing,we wouldn't have to do it

  6. #6
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,066
    Another way of saying this is that the derivitive of |x| is 1 if x> 0, -1 if x< 0, undefined at x= 0.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •