Rolle's Theorem - Proof of The Generalized Version

Proof of The Generalized Version

Since the proof for the standard version of Rolle's theorem and the generalization are very similar, we prove the generalization.

The idea of the proof is to argue that if f(a) = f(b), then f must attain either a maximum or a minimum somewhere between a and b, say at c, and the function must change from increasing to decreasing (or the other way around) at c. In particular, if the derivative exists, it must be zero at c.

By assumption, f is continuous on, and by the extreme value theorem attains both its maximum and its minimum in . If these are both attained at the endpoints of, then f is constant on and so the derivative of f is zero at every point in (a,b).

Suppose then that the maximum is obtained at an interior point c of (a,b) (the argument for the minimum is very similar, just consider −f ). We shall examine the above right- and left-hand limits separately.

For a real h such that c + h is in, the value f(c + h) is smaller or equal to f(c) because f attains its maximum at c. Therefore, for every h > 0,

hence

where the limit exists by assumption, it may be minus infinity.

Similarly, for every h < 0, the inequality turns around because the denominator is now negative and we get

hence

where the limit might be plus infinity.

Finally, when the above right- and left-hand limits agree (in particular when f is differentiable), then the derivative of f at c must be zero.

Read more about this topic:  Rolle's Theorem

Famous quotes containing the words proof of the, proof of, proof, generalized and/or version:

    When children feel good about themselves, it’s like a snowball rolling downhill. They are continually able to recognize and integrate new proof of their value as they grow and mature.
    Stephanie Martson (20th century)

    Ah! I have penetrated to those meadows on the morning of many a first spring day, jumping from hummock to hummock, from willow root to willow root, when the wild river valley and the woods were bathed in so pure and bright a light as would have waked the dead, if they had been slumbering in their graves, as some suppose. There needs no stronger proof of immortality. All things must live in such a light. O Death, where was thy sting? O Grave, where was thy victory, then?
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    The fact that several men were able to become infatuated with that latrine is truly the proof of the decline of the men of this century.
    Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867)

    One is conscious of no brave and noble earnestness in it, of no generalized passion for intellectual and spiritual adventure, of no organized determination to think things out. What is there is a highly self-conscious and insipid correctness, a bloodless respectability submergence of matter in manner—in brief, what is there is the feeble, uninspiring quality of German painting and English music.
    —H.L. (Henry Lewis)

    Exercise is the yuppie version of bulimia.
    Barbara Ehrenreich (b. 1941)