Calc 1 Mon 11/03/08 5.

7 - Rolles Theorem, Mean Value Theorem All right, we are done with the optimization problems. Now we move on to a couple of very famous (and useful) theorems in calculus. Rolles Theorem Say f (x) is a continuous function on a closed interval [a, b] and dierentiable on (a, b). Then if f (a) = f (b), there must be some point c, a c b such that f (c) = 0. So what does that mean? It says that if you have a nice function where the end points give you the same value, then somewhere in between, there must be a horizontal tangent. Think of f (x) = x2 , for example. Well, f (2) = f (2) = 4. Somewhere between [2, 2], there is a number c such that f (c) = 0. In this case, c = 0. Why is it that we can guarantee this c exists? Well, lets just think about the case that f (a) = f (b) = 0 (if the function isnt like this, just translate it so that it does!). Notice that if f (x) = 0 (the zero function), this is a bit trivial (f (x) = 0, and we have every point between a and b gives the derivative to be zero!). So, at some point, f (x) has to have a value other than zero. Say, for arguments sake, that f (x) goes up. So, this means that f (x) > 0 at some point in (a, b). Now, we have a continuous function on [a, b], a closed interval. Remind you of anything? Extreme Value Theorem perhaps? Remember, Extreme Value Theorem says if you have a continuous function on a closed interval, there must be an absolute max and an absolute min. Well, i dont care about the min right now, so lets take a look at that max. Here we have f (a) = 0 and f (b) = 0, and at some point, we know f (x) > 0. This means that the absolute max occurs somewhere in between a and b, namely, say, oh, at c. So, we can therefore conclude that c is in fact a critical point, and since were dierentiable on (a, b), then this critical point is also a stationary point, meaning f (c) = 0. Notice this basically works the same if f (x) < 0 between a and b. Okay, so we have this Rolles Theorem thing. Whats so useful about it? Well, the idea is, it guarantees this c. Many times we could care less what the actual value of c is, just that it exists. Sometimes, its actually impossible to determine c, but at least we know its there. However, in your homework, you will be asked many times to verify that a c exists and then you will be asked to go ahead and actually nd that c. Example: heres one that we actually can nd c. Let f (x) = x2 x 6. Find the x-intercepts and conrm that f (x) = 0 for some c between the x-intercepts. So the idea here is that you have these x-intercepts, and using the fact that f (x) = 0 at these two places, we can apply Rolles Theorem. f (x) = x2 x 6 = (x + 2)(x 3) = 0 so the x-intercepts are x = 2 and x = 3. But rst, we have to check and make sure that we can use Rolles Theorem. If i ask a question like this and the answer is using Rolles Theorem, i expect a little checklist like this one coming up: (1) Is f (x) continuous on [2, 3]? Yup. Its a polynomial! 1

(2) Is f (x) dierentiable on (2, 3)? Yup! Same reason: its a polynomial. (3) f (2) = f (3) = 0 Why do we need this checklist? Because you cant just take Rolles Theorem out of thin air on noncontinuous or nondierentiable functions (and well, denitely not so if f (2) = f (3), but theyre x-intercepts and we wouldnt be bothering with Rolles Theorem if theyre not). If you do not put that checklist, or at least acknowledge the fact that f (x) is cont and di, points will be taken o on a tests and quizzes. Even if you are completely correct in saying Rolles Theorem is how to do it, you need to verify that you can actually use Rolles Theorem. So, anyway, back to the problem: We need to nd the point c where f (c) = 0. Taking the derivative, f (x) = 2x 1 and setting that to zero, we get x = 1/2. This is our c. c = 1/2 because f (1/2) = 0! Heres something else useful about Rolles Theorem. Cubic functions can have either 1 or 3 real roots (theyll either hit the x-axis once or 3 times, including multiplicity). Well, this is great and all, but a big pain when you have a cubic function and cant tell if it has any more solutions (like, say, if youre trying to graph it or something). Rolles Theorem can help you determine if theres another root or not. Heres an example. Example: Let f (x) = x3 + x 1. Show that f (x) has exactly one real root. Solution: Well, for one thing, f (x) is continuous and f (0) = 1 and f (1) = 2, so somewhere between x = 0 and x = 1, the function has to hit zero (Intermediate Value Theorem). So, it has at least one root. Now we need to show that there are no more. So, lets try a contradiction. Suppose, for now, that there are in fact 2 real roots to this f (x), say a and b. Well, since f (x) is continuous and dierentiable (its a polynomial!) and f (a) = f (b) = 0, then we can apply Rolles Theorem, which says there is some c between a and b such that f (c) = 0. Okay... So, lets take the derivative of f (x) and check out this c. f (x) = 3x2 + 1 This would mean that if we were to set f (x) = 0, we would have x2 = 1/3 No way we can have that! This means no such c exists. Wheres the problem? Well, f (x) is denitely continuous and dierentiable, and Rolles Theorem cant be wrong, so the problem must be in the f (a) = f (b) = 0. Namely, we cant have two roots. Theres only one. One of the greatest uses of all of Rolles Theorem is that its used to prove a more general result: The Mean Value Theorem. Mean Value Theorem if f (x) is continuous on [a, b] and dierentiable on (a, b), then there is some c between a and b such that f (b) f (a) f (c) = ba So here it is, explained a little. You have a function with end points a and b. Draw a line from )f (a) f (a) to f (b). Whats the slope of that line? f (bb ! So, what the MVT is saying is at some a point between a and b, the tangent line has the same slope as the line from f (a) to f (b). Notice 2

how Rolles Theorem is a specic case of MVT (when f (a) = f (b), then Consider equation of line with slope
f (b)f (a) ba

f (b)f (a) ba

= 0).

going through the point (a, f (a)). f (b) f (a) (x a) ba

y f (a) = or,

f (b) f (a) (x a) + f (a) ba Now consider the function that is the dierence between f (x) and this line. Call this g (x). y= g (x) = f (x) ( f (b) f (a) (x a) + f (a)) ba

Well, g (x) is the dierence of two continuous and dierentiable functions, which means its continuous and dierentiable. Also, notice that g (a) = f (a) ( and g (b) = f (b) ( f (b) f (a) (b a)+ f (a)) = f (b) (f (b) f (a)+ f (a)) = f (b) f (b)+ f (a) f (a) = 0 ba f (b) f (a) (a a) + f (a)) = f (a) (0 + f (a)) = f (a) f (a) = 0 ba

Oh, okay! We have a cont and di function where g (a) = g (b) = 0! So we can apply Rolles Theorem! That means theres some c between a and b such that g (c) = 0 = f (c) f (b) f (a) ba

(the x a disappeared when taking the derivative) Or, rearranging a bit, f (b) f (a) f (c) = ba Like Rolles Theorem, if you are solving a problem and using MVT, i want that checklist! I want you to tell me why you can use MVT! Example: Consider f (x) = x3 x over the interval [0, 2]. Find all the values of c that satisfy the MVT. The only dierence between this and Rolles Theorem is that instead of solving f (c) = 0 (RT), )f (a) youre solving it for f (bb . So, since f (x) is a polynomial, its both cont and di, so MVT a applies, which means there is some c such that f (c) = f (2) f (0) 60 f (b) f (a) = = =3 ba 20 2

And, taking the derivative, we can see f (x) = 3x2 1 So, f (c) = 3c2 1 = 3 and solving for c, c= 4 2 = 3 3 3

 However, were only dealing with [0, 2] here, so 2/ 3 is thrown out. PLEASE make sure you check to see if your answer is in the interval!!!! This is pretty important in all that stu weve been doing (applied max/min problems, this stu...). If the answer isnt in the interval, get rid of it!! Example: Now heres something you might want to think about the next time youre driving a car. If f (t) is a position function (with respect to time t), then the average velocity between t = a and t = b is f (b) f (a) ba
)f (a) look familiar? This has MVT written all over it. There is some time c such that f (c) = f (bb . a OR, in other words, whatever your average velocity is, at some point, your instantaneous velocity was the same. Ie, at some point, you have to have actually driven the same that you averaged over the entire trip. Why should you keep this in mind? Think about it, especially if you come from a state that has a lot of toll roads (Im from New York, so theyre all over the place), where you might have a transponder hooked up to your credit card for paying tolls. Youre driving along the highway, which has a speed limit of 65 mph. You stop at a toll booth (or roll right through the cameras), which time stamps you at exactly 10:00 am. 40 miles down the road, theres another toll booth and it time stamps you going through at exactly 10:30 am (yes, the same day). This is a problem because 40 miles in a half an hour is averaging 80 mph. This means by MVT, you had to have gone 80mph at least once during that stretch between the toll booths. I do believe that if they get a picture of you driving when you pass through the toll booths, the police can issue a speeding ticket, even if nobody physically saw you speeding.

Constant Dierence Theorem: If you have two functions f (x) and g (x) that are both dierentiable and f (x) = g (x) for all x, then f and g only dier by a constant. Ie, f (x) = g (x) + k Or, again, in other words, f (x) is just a vertical translation of g (x). I just wanted to point this out because you have a couple homework problems dealing with this theorem. Example: Say f (x) = ln(x). Find g (x) such that f (x) = g (x) and g (1) = 3. Solution: Notice how we can use the constant dierent theorem here. we got f (x) dierentiable on (0, ) and this g (x) we want to create (so lets make it dierentiable) such that f (x) = g (x). Therefore, g (x) = f (x) + k well, f (x) = ln(x), so this means g (x) = ln(x) + k . We also want g (1) = 3. So, g (1) = 3 = ln(1) + k = 0 + k This means k = 3. Hence, g (x) = ln(x) + 3. Notice that we didnt even take a derivative here!

Example: (#29 in 5.7) Use MVT to show that y x< yx 2 x

Solution: lets start o with f (x) = x. Since the square root function is nice and dierentiable (well, as long as x > 0, but thats pretty much assumed), then by MVT, there is some c, x < c < y , where y x 1 f (c) = = yx 2 c But, since c > x, then if you shrink the denominator, youre dividing by a smaller number, which 1 results in a bigger number. Think about comparing 1 5 to 2 . If you shrink the denominator from 5 1 1 1 1 to 2, you have a bigger number, ie, 2 > 5 . So, this means 2 > 2 . Hence, x c y x 1 < yx 2 x

Multiply both sides by y x, and we get what we wanted. Example: #34. (a) Show that if f and g are functions for which f (x) = g (x) and g (x) = f (x) for all x, then f 2 (x) g 2 (x) is a constant.
1 x 1 x (b) Show that f (x) = 2 (e + ex ) and g (x) = 2 (e ex ) has this property.

Solution: d 2 f (x) g 2 (x) = 2f (x)f (x) 2g (x)g (x) = 2f (x)g (x) 2g (x)f (x) = 0 dx when the derivative is zero, that means you started o with a constant. To verify b, just take the derivative of each. Example: #36. Let f and g be cont on [a, b] and di on (a, b). Prove that if f (a) = g (a) and f (b) = g (b), then there is some point c in (a, b) such that f (c) = g (c). Solution: since f (a) = g (a), then that means for h(x) = f (x) g (x), we have h(a) = f (a) g (a) = 0. Ditto for h(b) = f (b) g (b) = 0. well, since these two guys are both the same, ie h(a) = h(b) = 0 and h(x) is the dierence of two cont, di functions, which means it itself is cont and di, then by RT, there must be some c in (a, b) where h (c) = 0. Therefore, h (c) = f (c) g (c) = 0, which gives us f (c) = g (c).

Example: #42. Let f (x) = Show that

x0+

x2 x2 + 1

x0 x>0

lim f (x) = lim f (x)

x0

but f (0) does not exist. Solution:

x0+

lim f (x) = lim 2x = 0

x0+ x0

x0

lim f (x) = lim 2x = 0

But f (0) does not exist because f (x) is not continuous at x = 0.