Fermats theorem, Mathematics

Fermat's Theorem

 If f(x) has a relative extrema at x = c and f′(c) exists then x = c is a critical point of f(x). Actually, this will be a critical point that f′(c) =0.

 Proof

It is a fairly easy proof.  We will suppose that f(x) has a relative maximum to do the proof.

 The proof for a relative minimum is nearly the same. Therefore, if we suppose that we have a relative maximum at x = c after that we know that f(c) ≥ f(x) for all x which are sufficiently close to x = c.

 Particularly for all h which are sufficiently close to zero may be positive or negative we must contain,

f(c) ≥ f(c + h)

or, with a little rewrite we should have,

f(c + h) - f(c) < 0                                             (1)

Now, here suppose that h > 0 and divide both sides of (1) with h. It provides,

(f(c + h) - f(c))/h < 0

Since we're assuming that h > 0 we can here take the right-hand limit of both sides of such.

= limh0¯  (f(c + h) - f(c))/h < limh0¯ 0 = 0

We are also assume that f′(c) exists and recall this if a general limit exists then this should be equal to both one-sided limits. We can so say that,

f′(c) = limh0¯  (f(c + h) - f(c))/h = limh0¯  (f(c + h) - f(c))/h < 0

If we place this together we have here demonstrated that, f′(c) ≤ 0 .

Fine, now let's turn things around and suppose that h < 0 provides,and divide both sides of (1) with h. It  gives

(f(c + h) - f(c))/h > 0

Keep in mind that as we're assuming h < 0 we will require to switch the inequality while we divide thorugh a negative number. We can here do a same argument as above to find that,

f′(c) = limh0 (f(c + h) - f(c))/h = limh0¯  (f(c + h) - f(c))/h >   limh0¯ 0 = 0

The difference now is that currently we're going to be considering at the left-hand limit as we're assuming that h < 0 . This argument illustrates that f′(c) ≥ 0 .

 We've now shown that

 f′(c) ≤ 0 and f′(c)  ≥ 0. So only way both of such can be true at similar time is to have f′(c) = 0 and it means that x = c must be a critical point.

 As considered above, if we suppose that f(x) has a relative minimum then the proof is nearly  the same and therefore isn't illustraten here. The major differences are simply several inequalities require to be switched.

Posted Date: 4/13/2013 3:52:50 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Fermats theorem, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Fermats theorem, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Fermats theorem Discussions

Write discussion on Fermats theorem
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
If p,q,r are roots of x^3-3x^2+4x-7=0 (p+2)(q+2)(r+2)=

Equal groupings - when we want to find how many objects there are in several equal-sized sets. (e.g., if there are 3 baskets, each with 4 bananas, 4 oranges and 4 apples, respec


The next thing that we must acknowledge is that all of the properties for exponents . This includes the more general rational exponent that we haven't looked at yet. Now the pr

Let Consider R A Χ B, S B Χ C be two relations. Then compositions of the relations S and R given by SoR A Χ C and is explained by (a, c) €(S o R) iff € b € B like (a, b) € R,

Power Series We have spent quite a bit of time talking about series now and along with just only a couple of exceptions we've spent most of that time talking about how to fin

A Class 4 teacher was going to teach her class fractions. At the beginning of the term she asked the children, "If you had three chocolates, and wanted to divide them equally among

1 ream uses 6% of a tree, Estimate the reams of paper used in one month in an office(may be your father, mother or neighbour), hence find the number of trees that need to be cut fo

What is the ratio of the cone''s volume to the cylinder''s volume

|a.x|=1 where x = i-2j+2k then calculate a