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)

    To cease to admire is a proof of deterioration.
    Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)

    Right and proof are two crutches for everything bent and crooked that limps along.
    Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)

    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)

    It is never the thing but the version of the thing:
    The fragrance of the woman not her self,
    Her self in her manner not the solid block,
    The day in its color not perpending time,
    Time in its weather, our most sovereign lord,
    The weather in words and words in sounds of sound.
    Wallace Stevens (1879–1955)