The following statement makes sense intuitively, but is there a way to prove it mathematically? (This is something we make use of in applied optimization in calculus.)

If $f$ is continuous on an interval $I$ and $x_0$ is the only relative (local) extremum, then $x_0$ is actually an absolute (global) extremum on $I$.

  • $\begingroup$ $(x+1)^2(x-1)^2$ on $\mathbb{R}$? This idea could even be adapted to a finite open interval. If you demand a closed, bounded interval, most people agree that endpoints can be defined as local extrema. $\endgroup$
    – user123641
    Aug 9, 2017 at 1:49

3 Answers 3


Not sure if this is what you mean, but I'll give it a go.

If you consider the extrema to be the minima, you can say that an absolute minimum is always a relative minimum (because if it's not even a relative minimum, how can it be an absolute minimum?). That means that only relative minima are candidates for the absolute minimum. We could write: $$a = \min{(r_1,\ r_2,\ r_3,\ \ldots)},$$ where $a$ is the absolute minimum and $r_i$ is the $i$'th relative minimum. Hence, if we have only one minimum, we have: $$a = \min{(r_1)},$$ so that the absolute minimum automatically equals the relative minimum. The case with maxima instead of minima is analogous.

  • $\begingroup$ It is possible for an absolute minimum to not be a relative minimum. For example, an endpoint of a closed interval can be an absolute extremum, but it is not considered as a local extremum. (x = -1 is the point of absolute minimum of f(x) = 2x - 3x^(2/3) on the interval [-1, 3], but it is NOT a point of local minimum!) $\endgroup$
    – Leponzo
    Nov 25, 2014 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ Why is it not a point of local minimum? It is the minimal value in the neighbourhood of $x=-1$... Just a matter of definition if you ask me. $\endgroup$
    – SPK.z
    Nov 27, 2014 at 14:17

suppose I is closed. if $x_0$ is a local maximum, then if it is not an absolute maximum $\exists x_1. f(x_1) \gt f(x_0)$. if $x_0 \ne \sup\{x | x \in I\}$ we may assume w.l.o.g $x_1 \gt x_0$

since $I'=[x_0,x_1]$ is compact $f$ attains a minimum value on $I'$, say at $x'$, contradicting the assumption that the extremum at $x_0$ is unique.

other cases can be dealt with by slight modification of the same argument

  • $\begingroup$ This is wrong: x' could be x_1, in which case it would not be an interior global extremum and hence would not necessarily be a local extremum. $\endgroup$ Aug 9, 2017 at 1:12

Suppose $x_0$ is a local maximum. Assume $x_0$ is not an absolute maximum. Then $\exists x_1 \in I$ with $f(x_1) > f(x_1)$. Let $I'$ be the closed interval from $x_0$ to $x_1$. Let $x'$ be the global minimum of $f$ on $I'$.

Then we can choose $x' \ne x_0$, as $x_0$ is a local maximum for $f$, so there is a small open interval $V$ about $x_0$ in $I$ with $f(v) \le f(x_0)$ for $v \in V$.

Also, clearly $x' \ne x_1$.

So, $x'$ is an interior global minimum point for $f$ on $I'$, so $x'$ is a local minimum for $f$ on $I'$ and hence for $f$ on $I$, contradicting the status of $x_0$ as the unique local extremum for $f$ on $I$.

The case for $x_0$ a local minimum is similar.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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