Mixing
Understanding lemma for proof of convexity
The lemma says:
Lemma: Suppose $f$ is differentiable and $f'$ is increasing. If $a < b$ and $f(a) = f(b)$, then $f(x) < f(a) = f(b)$ for $a < x < b$.
Proof: Suppose first that $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ for some $x$ in $(a, b)$. Then the maximum of $f$ on $[a, b]$ occurs at some point $x_0$ in $(a, b)$ with $f(x_0) > f(a)$ and of course $f'(x_0) = 0$.
Then the proof continues:
On the other hand, applying the Mean Value Theorem to the interval $[a, x_0]$, we find that there is $x_1$ with $a < x_1 < x_0$ and
$$f'(x_1) = frac{f(x_0) - f(a)}{x_0 - a} > 0$$
Contradicting the fact that $f'$ is increasing. [...]
I understand the lemma tells us that if $f'$ is increasing, then the graph of $f$ will be below any horizontal secant line through $(a, f(a))$ and $(b, f(b))$.
I can also see the proof is by contradiction here, we will show that if $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ then $f'$ can't be increasing. Also clear is that $f'(x_0) = 0$ since we are looking at a local maximum for the first case of the proof.
What I'm having trouble with is what the application of the Mean Value Theorem. For the first case where we work with the local maximum, I understand we find a point $a < x_1 < x_0$ with the same slope as the line connecting the endpoints of the interval $[a, x_0]$ would have, but how does it show $f'$ can't be increasing and how do we know $f'(x_1) > 0$?
real-analysis calculus proof-explanation
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
add a comment |
The lemma says:
Lemma: Suppose $f$ is differentiable and $f'$ is increasing. If $a < b$ and $f(a) = f(b)$, then $f(x) < f(a) = f(b)$ for $a < x < b$.
Proof: Suppose first that $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ for some $x$ in $(a, b)$. Then the maximum of $f$ on $[a, b]$ occurs at some point $x_0$ in $(a, b)$ with $f(x_0) > f(a)$ and of course $f'(x_0) = 0$.
Then the proof continues:
On the other hand, applying the Mean Value Theorem to the interval $[a, x_0]$, we find that there is $x_1$ with $a < x_1 < x_0$ and
$$f'(x_1) = frac{f(x_0) - f(a)}{x_0 - a} > 0$$
Contradicting the fact that $f'$ is increasing. [...]
I understand the lemma tells us that if $f'$ is increasing, then the graph of $f$ will be below any horizontal secant line through $(a, f(a))$ and $(b, f(b))$.
I can also see the proof is by contradiction here, we will show that if $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ then $f'$ can't be increasing. Also clear is that $f'(x_0) = 0$ since we are looking at a local maximum for the first case of the proof.
What I'm having trouble with is what the application of the Mean Value Theorem. For the first case where we work with the local maximum, I understand we find a point $a < x_1 < x_0$ with the same slope as the line connecting the endpoints of the interval $[a, x_0]$ would have, but how does it show $f'$ can't be increasing and how do we know $f'(x_1) > 0$?
real-analysis calculus proof-explanation
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
add a comment |
The lemma says:
Lemma: Suppose $f$ is differentiable and $f'$ is increasing. If $a < b$ and $f(a) = f(b)$, then $f(x) < f(a) = f(b)$ for $a < x < b$.
Proof: Suppose first that $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ for some $x$ in $(a, b)$. Then the maximum of $f$ on $[a, b]$ occurs at some point $x_0$ in $(a, b)$ with $f(x_0) > f(a)$ and of course $f'(x_0) = 0$.
Then the proof continues:
On the other hand, applying the Mean Value Theorem to the interval $[a, x_0]$, we find that there is $x_1$ with $a < x_1 < x_0$ and
$$f'(x_1) = frac{f(x_0) - f(a)}{x_0 - a} > 0$$
Contradicting the fact that $f'$ is increasing. [...]
I understand the lemma tells us that if $f'$ is increasing, then the graph of $f$ will be below any horizontal secant line through $(a, f(a))$ and $(b, f(b))$.
I can also see the proof is by contradiction here, we will show that if $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ then $f'$ can't be increasing. Also clear is that $f'(x_0) = 0$ since we are looking at a local maximum for the first case of the proof.
What I'm having trouble with is what the application of the Mean Value Theorem. For the first case where we work with the local maximum, I understand we find a point $a < x_1 < x_0$ with the same slope as the line connecting the endpoints of the interval $[a, x_0]$ would have, but how does it show $f'$ can't be increasing and how do we know $f'(x_1) > 0$?
real-analysis calculus proof-explanation
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
The lemma says:
Lemma: Suppose $f$ is differentiable and $f'$ is increasing. If $a < b$ and $f(a) = f(b)$, then $f(x) < f(a) = f(b)$ for $a < x < b$.
Proof: Suppose first that $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ for some $x$ in $(a, b)$. Then the maximum of $f$ on $[a, b]$ occurs at some point $x_0$ in $(a, b)$ with $f(x_0) > f(a)$ and of course $f'(x_0) = 0$.
Then the proof continues:
On the other hand, applying the Mean Value Theorem to the interval $[a, x_0]$, we find that there is $x_1$ with $a < x_1 < x_0$ and
$$f'(x_1) = frac{f(x_0) - f(a)}{x_0 - a} > 0$$
Contradicting the fact that $f'$ is increasing. [...]
I understand the lemma tells us that if $f'$ is increasing, then the graph of $f$ will be below any horizontal secant line through $(a, f(a))$ and $(b, f(b))$.
I can also see the proof is by contradiction here, we will show that if $f(x) > f(a) = f(b)$ then $f'$ can't be increasing. Also clear is that $f'(x_0) = 0$ since we are looking at a local maximum for the first case of the proof.
What I'm having trouble with is what the application of the Mean Value Theorem. For the first case where we work with the local maximum, I understand we find a point $a < x_1 < x_0$ with the same slope as the line connecting the endpoints of the interval $[a, x_0]$ would have, but how does it show $f'$ can't be increasing and how do we know $f'(x_1) > 0$?
real-analysis calculus proof-explanation
real-analysis calculus proof-explanation
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
asked Dec 31 '18 at 23:29
MaxMax
636519
636519
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
First, it shows that $f'$ can't always be increasing because it is positive at $x_1$ but it's $0$ at $x_0 gt x_1$, so $f'$ must have decreased. As for knowing $f'left(x_1right) gt 0$, since the maximum of $f$ occurs at $x_0$, then $fleft(x_0right) gt fleft(aright)$. Also, by the condition for $x_0$, you have that $x_0 gt a$. Thus, both the numerator and denominator of $f'left(x_1right)$ are positive, making the result $gt 0$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
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%2f3058117%2funderstanding-lemma-for-proof-of-convexity%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
First, it shows that $f'$ can't always be increasing because it is positive at $x_1$ but it's $0$ at $x_0 gt x_1$, so $f'$ must have decreased. As for knowing $f'left(x_1right) gt 0$, since the maximum of $f$ occurs at $x_0$, then $fleft(x_0right) gt fleft(aright)$. Also, by the condition for $x_0$, you have that $x_0 gt a$. Thus, both the numerator and denominator of $f'left(x_1right)$ are positive, making the result $gt 0$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
add a comment |
First, it shows that $f'$ can't always be increasing because it is positive at $x_1$ but it's $0$ at $x_0 gt x_1$, so $f'$ must have decreased. As for knowing $f'left(x_1right) gt 0$, since the maximum of $f$ occurs at $x_0$, then $fleft(x_0right) gt fleft(aright)$. Also, by the condition for $x_0$, you have that $x_0 gt a$. Thus, both the numerator and denominator of $f'left(x_1right)$ are positive, making the result $gt 0$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
add a comment |
First, it shows that $f'$ can't always be increasing because it is positive at $x_1$ but it's $0$ at $x_0 gt x_1$, so $f'$ must have decreased. As for knowing $f'left(x_1right) gt 0$, since the maximum of $f$ occurs at $x_0$, then $fleft(x_0right) gt fleft(aright)$. Also, by the condition for $x_0$, you have that $x_0 gt a$. Thus, both the numerator and denominator of $f'left(x_1right)$ are positive, making the result $gt 0$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
First, it shows that $f'$ can't always be increasing because it is positive at $x_1$ but it's $0$ at $x_0 gt x_1$, so $f'$ must have decreased. As for knowing $f'left(x_1right) gt 0$, since the maximum of $f$ occurs at $x_0$, then $fleft(x_0right) gt fleft(aright)$. Also, by the condition for $x_0$, you have that $x_0 gt a$. Thus, both the numerator and denominator of $f'left(x_1right)$ are positive, making the result $gt 0$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
edited Dec 31 '18 at 23:47
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
answered Dec 31 '18 at 23:37
John OmielanJohn Omielan
1,14118
1,14118
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
add a comment |
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
I think I get it a bit more, although I find the details still hard to grok. But generally, the proof relies on the fact that if $f'$ is increasing, then $f''$ is positive on the whole interval, is that right?
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:40
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
Because if we find a point where $f'$ is positive and then another point after that one where $f' = 0$, then $f'$ must have been decreasing between those two points and then $f''$ would have been negative.
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:42
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
@Max Even though $f'$ is increasing, there is no guarantee that $f''$ even exists, but it must be positive if it does. As for your second comment, you are correct as well re: $f''$, but the main issue is that $f'$ decreasing contradicts the original problem statement, so the original assumption must be incorrect, proving the desired result using proof by contradiction.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:45
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
Thanks again, i need to let it sink in, but I feel I can get it now. Cheers!
– Max
Jan 1 at 2:58
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
@Max You are welcome. I'm glad I was able to be of some help.
– John Omielan
Jan 1 at 2:59
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%2f3058117%2funderstanding-lemma-for-proof-of-convexity%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
