Using Rolle's theorem to show an equation has only one real root
$begingroup$
Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
$$e^x=1+x$$
By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?
calculus applications rolles-theorem
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
$$e^x=1+x$$
By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?
calculus applications rolles-theorem
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
$$e^x=1+x$$
By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?
calculus applications rolles-theorem
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
$endgroup$
Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
$$e^x=1+x$$
By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?
calculus applications rolles-theorem
calculus applications rolles-theorem
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
edited 38 mins ago
Eevee Trainer
9,06731640
9,06731640
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
asked 47 mins ago
blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...
3,30221755
3,30221755
$begingroup$
It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
13 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).
Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.
$f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).
Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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%2f3169097%2fusing-rolles-theorem-to-show-an-equation-has-only-one-real-root%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).
Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.
$f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).
Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).
Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.
$f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).
Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).
Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.
$f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).
Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
$endgroup$
Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).
Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.
$f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).
Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
edited 19 mins ago
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
answered 41 mins ago
Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer
9,06731640
9,06731640
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the second para.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
$begingroup$
We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
36 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
$endgroup$
– Eevee Trainer
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
$begingroup$
With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
$endgroup$
– blue_eyed_...
17 mins ago
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%2f3169097%2fusing-rolles-theorem-to-show-an-equation-has-only-one-real-root%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
$begingroup$
It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
$endgroup$
– Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
13 mins ago