Prove that there is a number $x_0 in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x < x_0$.
$begingroup$
Suppose that the function $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $f(0)>0$, and $f(1)=0$. Prove that there is a number $x_0 in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x < x_0$; that is, there is a smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which the function $f$ attains the value $0$.
Since $f$ is continuous on a closed an bounded interval, $[0,1]$, then by the extreme value theorem, $f$ attains both a minimum and a maximum value. The minimum value will obviously be $0$, but I'm not really sure where to go after stating this. Any suggestions?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that the function $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $f(0)>0$, and $f(1)=0$. Prove that there is a number $x_0 in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x < x_0$; that is, there is a smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which the function $f$ attains the value $0$.
Since $f$ is continuous on a closed an bounded interval, $[0,1]$, then by the extreme value theorem, $f$ attains both a minimum and a maximum value. The minimum value will obviously be $0$, but I'm not really sure where to go after stating this. Any suggestions?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I would do a proof by contradiction.
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@shade4159 I'm not really sure how I would show this by contradiction. If I suppose there is not a number $x_0in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x<x_0$, then can't there still be a minimum and maximum on the interval?
$endgroup$
– TheMobiusLoops
Nov 6 '13 at 4:51
1
$begingroup$
Assume there is no smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which $f$ attains the value $0$. So $forall x_0 in [0,1]| f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1]| f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose that the function $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $f(0)>0$, and $f(1)=0$. Prove that there is a number $x_0 in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x < x_0$; that is, there is a smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which the function $f$ attains the value $0$.
Since $f$ is continuous on a closed an bounded interval, $[0,1]$, then by the extreme value theorem, $f$ attains both a minimum and a maximum value. The minimum value will obviously be $0$, but I'm not really sure where to go after stating this. Any suggestions?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
Suppose that the function $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $f(0)>0$, and $f(1)=0$. Prove that there is a number $x_0 in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x < x_0$; that is, there is a smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which the function $f$ attains the value $0$.
Since $f$ is continuous on a closed an bounded interval, $[0,1]$, then by the extreme value theorem, $f$ attains both a minimum and a maximum value. The minimum value will obviously be $0$, but I'm not really sure where to go after stating this. Any suggestions?
real-analysis
real-analysis
asked Nov 6 '13 at 4:34
TheMobiusLoopsTheMobiusLoops
664722
664722
$begingroup$
I would do a proof by contradiction.
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@shade4159 I'm not really sure how I would show this by contradiction. If I suppose there is not a number $x_0in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x<x_0$, then can't there still be a minimum and maximum on the interval?
$endgroup$
– TheMobiusLoops
Nov 6 '13 at 4:51
1
$begingroup$
Assume there is no smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which $f$ attains the value $0$. So $forall x_0 in [0,1]| f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1]| f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would do a proof by contradiction.
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@shade4159 I'm not really sure how I would show this by contradiction. If I suppose there is not a number $x_0in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x<x_0$, then can't there still be a minimum and maximum on the interval?
$endgroup$
– TheMobiusLoops
Nov 6 '13 at 4:51
1
$begingroup$
Assume there is no smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which $f$ attains the value $0$. So $forall x_0 in [0,1]| f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1]| f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:56
$begingroup$
I would do a proof by contradiction.
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:43
$begingroup$
I would do a proof by contradiction.
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@shade4159 I'm not really sure how I would show this by contradiction. If I suppose there is not a number $x_0in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x<x_0$, then can't there still be a minimum and maximum on the interval?
$endgroup$
– TheMobiusLoops
Nov 6 '13 at 4:51
$begingroup$
@shade4159 I'm not really sure how I would show this by contradiction. If I suppose there is not a number $x_0in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x<x_0$, then can't there still be a minimum and maximum on the interval?
$endgroup$
– TheMobiusLoops
Nov 6 '13 at 4:51
1
1
$begingroup$
Assume there is no smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which $f$ attains the value $0$. So $forall x_0 in [0,1]| f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1]| f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:56
$begingroup$
Assume there is no smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which $f$ attains the value $0$. So $forall x_0 in [0,1]| f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1]| f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:56
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If there is no smallest root,
then, for any $c > 0$,
there is a root $r$
such that
$0 < r < c$.
Use this to prove that
$f$ is not continuous at zero.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The existence of a root is apparent in the region $(0,1]$ as 1 is a root. So, now that we know the roots exist, we can take the least root in the set $S:={x_imid f(x_i)=0}$ and call that element $x_0$, since the set of roots of a continuous function is closed. Since, for all $xin(0,x_0)$, $f(x)not=0$, $f(0)=1$, $f(x_0)=0$, and $f$ is continuous, all values between $x_0$ and $0$ must be greater than 0.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a proof by contradiction, assume:
$$forall x_0 in [0,1] ,| , f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1],|, f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$$
Then, since we are given $f$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ and $f(0) > 0$, it should be relatively simple to show a contradiction exists.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Starting from the hypothesis that $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function (on a compact set $[0,1]$) satisfying $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)=0$ one has in particular that there exist $c,d in [0,1]$ such that
$displaystyle f(c)=inf_{xin [0,1]} f(x)$ and $displaystyle f(d)=sup_{x in [0,1]}f(x)$.
In particular, one has the flag of inequalities
$$f(c)leq f(1)=0<f(0)leq f(d).$$
The proof that $f(x_0)=0$ for some $0leq x_0<1$ is a direct consequence for the intermediate value theorem for continuous functions. Indeed, if $f(c)=0$ then $x_0$ is a root of the equation $f(x)$ on the interval $[0,x_0]$. Otherwise, one has $f(c)<0<f(0)$ together with the continuity condition assures the existence of $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ fulfils on the open interval $(0,c)$.
The proof that the inequality $f(x)>0$ holds on the interval $0leq x<x_0$ is a natural consequence of the continuity of the function on the point $0$.
In concrete, for every $varepsilon>0$ it is possible to find a $delta>0$ such that for every $x in (-delta,delta)cap [0,x_0)$ there holds
$$ -varepsilon<f(x)-f(0)<varepsilon.$$
In particular, for the choice $varepsilon=f(0)$ we then have that $f(x)>0$ in a neighborhood $(0,delta)$ of the interval $[0,x_0)$ ($deltaleq x_0$). This proves that $f(x)>0$ on $(0,x_0)$. Thereby $f(x)>0$ on $[0,x_0)$, as desired.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f553852%2fprove-that-there-is-a-number-x-0-in-0-1-such-that-fx-0-0-and-fx0-f%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
If there is no smallest root,
then, for any $c > 0$,
there is a root $r$
such that
$0 < r < c$.
Use this to prove that
$f$ is not continuous at zero.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If there is no smallest root,
then, for any $c > 0$,
there is a root $r$
such that
$0 < r < c$.
Use this to prove that
$f$ is not continuous at zero.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If there is no smallest root,
then, for any $c > 0$,
there is a root $r$
such that
$0 < r < c$.
Use this to prove that
$f$ is not continuous at zero.
$endgroup$
If there is no smallest root,
then, for any $c > 0$,
there is a root $r$
such that
$0 < r < c$.
Use this to prove that
$f$ is not continuous at zero.
answered Nov 6 '13 at 5:09
marty cohenmarty cohen
75.9k549130
75.9k549130
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The existence of a root is apparent in the region $(0,1]$ as 1 is a root. So, now that we know the roots exist, we can take the least root in the set $S:={x_imid f(x_i)=0}$ and call that element $x_0$, since the set of roots of a continuous function is closed. Since, for all $xin(0,x_0)$, $f(x)not=0$, $f(0)=1$, $f(x_0)=0$, and $f$ is continuous, all values between $x_0$ and $0$ must be greater than 0.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The existence of a root is apparent in the region $(0,1]$ as 1 is a root. So, now that we know the roots exist, we can take the least root in the set $S:={x_imid f(x_i)=0}$ and call that element $x_0$, since the set of roots of a continuous function is closed. Since, for all $xin(0,x_0)$, $f(x)not=0$, $f(0)=1$, $f(x_0)=0$, and $f$ is continuous, all values between $x_0$ and $0$ must be greater than 0.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The existence of a root is apparent in the region $(0,1]$ as 1 is a root. So, now that we know the roots exist, we can take the least root in the set $S:={x_imid f(x_i)=0}$ and call that element $x_0$, since the set of roots of a continuous function is closed. Since, for all $xin(0,x_0)$, $f(x)not=0$, $f(0)=1$, $f(x_0)=0$, and $f$ is continuous, all values between $x_0$ and $0$ must be greater than 0.
$endgroup$
The existence of a root is apparent in the region $(0,1]$ as 1 is a root. So, now that we know the roots exist, we can take the least root in the set $S:={x_imid f(x_i)=0}$ and call that element $x_0$, since the set of roots of a continuous function is closed. Since, for all $xin(0,x_0)$, $f(x)not=0$, $f(0)=1$, $f(x_0)=0$, and $f$ is continuous, all values between $x_0$ and $0$ must be greater than 0.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:20
Community♦
1
1
answered Nov 6 '13 at 4:44
Tim RatiganTim Ratigan
6,2351028
6,2351028
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a proof by contradiction, assume:
$$forall x_0 in [0,1] ,| , f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1],|, f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$$
Then, since we are given $f$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ and $f(0) > 0$, it should be relatively simple to show a contradiction exists.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a proof by contradiction, assume:
$$forall x_0 in [0,1] ,| , f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1],|, f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$$
Then, since we are given $f$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ and $f(0) > 0$, it should be relatively simple to show a contradiction exists.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a proof by contradiction, assume:
$$forall x_0 in [0,1] ,| , f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1],|, f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$$
Then, since we are given $f$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ and $f(0) > 0$, it should be relatively simple to show a contradiction exists.
$endgroup$
For a proof by contradiction, assume:
$$forall x_0 in [0,1] ,| , f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1],|, f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$$
Then, since we are given $f$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ and $f(0) > 0$, it should be relatively simple to show a contradiction exists.
answered Nov 6 '13 at 5:08
shade4159shade4159
68749
68749
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Starting from the hypothesis that $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function (on a compact set $[0,1]$) satisfying $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)=0$ one has in particular that there exist $c,d in [0,1]$ such that
$displaystyle f(c)=inf_{xin [0,1]} f(x)$ and $displaystyle f(d)=sup_{x in [0,1]}f(x)$.
In particular, one has the flag of inequalities
$$f(c)leq f(1)=0<f(0)leq f(d).$$
The proof that $f(x_0)=0$ for some $0leq x_0<1$ is a direct consequence for the intermediate value theorem for continuous functions. Indeed, if $f(c)=0$ then $x_0$ is a root of the equation $f(x)$ on the interval $[0,x_0]$. Otherwise, one has $f(c)<0<f(0)$ together with the continuity condition assures the existence of $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ fulfils on the open interval $(0,c)$.
The proof that the inequality $f(x)>0$ holds on the interval $0leq x<x_0$ is a natural consequence of the continuity of the function on the point $0$.
In concrete, for every $varepsilon>0$ it is possible to find a $delta>0$ such that for every $x in (-delta,delta)cap [0,x_0)$ there holds
$$ -varepsilon<f(x)-f(0)<varepsilon.$$
In particular, for the choice $varepsilon=f(0)$ we then have that $f(x)>0$ in a neighborhood $(0,delta)$ of the interval $[0,x_0)$ ($deltaleq x_0$). This proves that $f(x)>0$ on $(0,x_0)$. Thereby $f(x)>0$ on $[0,x_0)$, as desired.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Starting from the hypothesis that $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function (on a compact set $[0,1]$) satisfying $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)=0$ one has in particular that there exist $c,d in [0,1]$ such that
$displaystyle f(c)=inf_{xin [0,1]} f(x)$ and $displaystyle f(d)=sup_{x in [0,1]}f(x)$.
In particular, one has the flag of inequalities
$$f(c)leq f(1)=0<f(0)leq f(d).$$
The proof that $f(x_0)=0$ for some $0leq x_0<1$ is a direct consequence for the intermediate value theorem for continuous functions. Indeed, if $f(c)=0$ then $x_0$ is a root of the equation $f(x)$ on the interval $[0,x_0]$. Otherwise, one has $f(c)<0<f(0)$ together with the continuity condition assures the existence of $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ fulfils on the open interval $(0,c)$.
The proof that the inequality $f(x)>0$ holds on the interval $0leq x<x_0$ is a natural consequence of the continuity of the function on the point $0$.
In concrete, for every $varepsilon>0$ it is possible to find a $delta>0$ such that for every $x in (-delta,delta)cap [0,x_0)$ there holds
$$ -varepsilon<f(x)-f(0)<varepsilon.$$
In particular, for the choice $varepsilon=f(0)$ we then have that $f(x)>0$ in a neighborhood $(0,delta)$ of the interval $[0,x_0)$ ($deltaleq x_0$). This proves that $f(x)>0$ on $(0,x_0)$. Thereby $f(x)>0$ on $[0,x_0)$, as desired.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Starting from the hypothesis that $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function (on a compact set $[0,1]$) satisfying $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)=0$ one has in particular that there exist $c,d in [0,1]$ such that
$displaystyle f(c)=inf_{xin [0,1]} f(x)$ and $displaystyle f(d)=sup_{x in [0,1]}f(x)$.
In particular, one has the flag of inequalities
$$f(c)leq f(1)=0<f(0)leq f(d).$$
The proof that $f(x_0)=0$ for some $0leq x_0<1$ is a direct consequence for the intermediate value theorem for continuous functions. Indeed, if $f(c)=0$ then $x_0$ is a root of the equation $f(x)$ on the interval $[0,x_0]$. Otherwise, one has $f(c)<0<f(0)$ together with the continuity condition assures the existence of $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ fulfils on the open interval $(0,c)$.
The proof that the inequality $f(x)>0$ holds on the interval $0leq x<x_0$ is a natural consequence of the continuity of the function on the point $0$.
In concrete, for every $varepsilon>0$ it is possible to find a $delta>0$ such that for every $x in (-delta,delta)cap [0,x_0)$ there holds
$$ -varepsilon<f(x)-f(0)<varepsilon.$$
In particular, for the choice $varepsilon=f(0)$ we then have that $f(x)>0$ in a neighborhood $(0,delta)$ of the interval $[0,x_0)$ ($deltaleq x_0$). This proves that $f(x)>0$ on $(0,x_0)$. Thereby $f(x)>0$ on $[0,x_0)$, as desired.
$endgroup$
Starting from the hypothesis that $f:[0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function (on a compact set $[0,1]$) satisfying $f(0)>0$ and $f(1)=0$ one has in particular that there exist $c,d in [0,1]$ such that
$displaystyle f(c)=inf_{xin [0,1]} f(x)$ and $displaystyle f(d)=sup_{x in [0,1]}f(x)$.
In particular, one has the flag of inequalities
$$f(c)leq f(1)=0<f(0)leq f(d).$$
The proof that $f(x_0)=0$ for some $0leq x_0<1$ is a direct consequence for the intermediate value theorem for continuous functions. Indeed, if $f(c)=0$ then $x_0$ is a root of the equation $f(x)$ on the interval $[0,x_0]$. Otherwise, one has $f(c)<0<f(0)$ together with the continuity condition assures the existence of $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ fulfils on the open interval $(0,c)$.
The proof that the inequality $f(x)>0$ holds on the interval $0leq x<x_0$ is a natural consequence of the continuity of the function on the point $0$.
In concrete, for every $varepsilon>0$ it is possible to find a $delta>0$ such that for every $x in (-delta,delta)cap [0,x_0)$ there holds
$$ -varepsilon<f(x)-f(0)<varepsilon.$$
In particular, for the choice $varepsilon=f(0)$ we then have that $f(x)>0$ in a neighborhood $(0,delta)$ of the interval $[0,x_0)$ ($deltaleq x_0$). This proves that $f(x)>0$ on $(0,x_0)$. Thereby $f(x)>0$ on $[0,x_0)$, as desired.
answered May 24 '18 at 23:08
Nelson FaustinoNelson Faustino
1427
1427
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
The existence of $x_0$ with $f(x_0)=0$ is obvious as we may take $x_0=1$. The real challenge is to find $x_0$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $xin[0,x_0)$. And your proof at the end only shows that $f(x) >0$ in $[0,delta)$ and hence wrong. The right answer is given by considering set $A={xmid f(x) =0} $ and then using $x_0=inf,A$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
May 25 '18 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
$begingroup$
Yes! You are indeed right. The set $A=f^{-1}({0})$ is closed. And due to continuity arguments on a compact set so that the existence of $x_0$ is guaranteed.
$endgroup$
– Nelson Faustino
May 25 '18 at 15:01
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f553852%2fprove-that-there-is-a-number-x-0-in-0-1-such-that-fx-0-0-and-fx0-f%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I would do a proof by contradiction.
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:43
$begingroup$
@shade4159 I'm not really sure how I would show this by contradiction. If I suppose there is not a number $x_0in (0,1]$ such that $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x)>0$ for $0le x<x_0$, then can't there still be a minimum and maximum on the interval?
$endgroup$
– TheMobiusLoops
Nov 6 '13 at 4:51
1
$begingroup$
Assume there is no smallest point in the interval $[0,1]$ at which $f$ attains the value $0$. So $forall x_0 in [0,1]| f(x_0) = 0, exists x_1 in [0,1]| f(x_1) = 0, x_1 < x_0$
$endgroup$
– shade4159
Nov 6 '13 at 4:56