Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a function such that $f'''$ is continuous and let's suppose there's some point $a \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $f'(a) = f''(a) = 0$. Does $f'''(a)>0$ tell me anything about whether $a$ is a relative maximum/minimum or neither? I've had a look at higher-order derivative tests, which tells me that $a$ should be a strictly increasing point of inflection, but I would like to formally prove this.

Edit: As Manzano has pointed out, the general version follows from the Taylor expansion at point $a$. I'm trying to show the specific version for $f'''$ without resorting to Taylor.

share|cite|improve this question
Use the Taylor expansion of $f$ at $a$. – Manzano Oct 30 '12 at 12:55

Well, let me provide you with two theorems that might help you with this:

Theorem 1. Let's assume that $f:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R}$ has derivatives of $(2k-1)$-th order, and there exists $f^{(2k)}(x_{0})$. If


then $f$ has a local maximum ($f^{(2k)}(x_{0})<0$) or minimum ($f^{(2k)}(x_{0})>0$) in $x_{0}$.

Theorem 2. Let's assume that $f:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R}$ has derivatives of $(2k)$-th order, and there exists $f^{(2k+1)}(x_{0})$. If


then $f$ does not have neither a minimum nor a maximum in $x_{0}$.

Do you see now which one is applicable?

share|cite|improve this answer
The second one. But how do I prove it for the special case $k=1$ without using the Taylor expansion? – somebody Oct 30 '12 at 17:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.