Using Rolle's theorem to show an equation has only one real root












2












$begingroup$



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
    $endgroup$
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    13 mins ago


















2












$begingroup$



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    It is $$exp(x)geq 1+x$$ for all real $x$
    $endgroup$
    – Dr. Sonnhard Graubner
    13 mins ago
















2












2








2





$begingroup$



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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$





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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 38 mins ago









Eevee Trainer

9,06731640




9,06731640










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




















  • $begingroup$
    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












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









5












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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
















5












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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














5












5








5





$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 19 mins ago

























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


















  • $begingroup$
    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


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

Single-Malt-Whisky

Czorneboh