1
$\begingroup$

Let $f$ be a continuously differentiable function defined $f : \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ such that $f(x)$ is defined for for all $x$. Suppose $x_0$ is a local minimizer for $f$. Is $f$ one-to-one?

I was thinking this must be false because at $x_0$, you can probably find two points $p_1$ and $p_2$ in $[x_0 + \epsilon, x_0 - \epsilon]$ with $f(p_1) = f(p_2)$. I think if you drew a horizontal line across the y-axis slightly above $f(x_0)$ it would cross the graph $f(x)$ at least twice which would mean it's not 1-1. However, I am just not sure how to formalize this idea (Though if my idea is wrong too, please correct me).

Any tips for how to approach this?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If $f$ takes the values $f(x_0)$ and $f(x_1)\geq f(x_0)$ and $f(x_2)\geq f(x_0)$, with $x_1<x_0$ and $x_2>x_0$, then it takes the value $\frac{f(x_0)+\min(f(x_1),f(x_2))}{2}$, both in the interval $[x_1,x_0]$ and in $[x_0,x_2]$. $\endgroup$ – Alamos Apr 25 '15 at 22:27
0
$\begingroup$

You are right, a function cannot have extremes, global or local, and be one-to-one. The only case where $\frac {d}{dx}f(x_0)=0$ does not mess up the function's being one-to-one is when $f(x_0)$ is an inflection point, where concave up meets concave down, i.e. the second derivative crosses the x-axis. Your approach of checking with horizontal lines is good in the abstract, but if microscopic changes or variance in near-horizontal segments of a graph are possible, it's not reliable. Comparing $f(x-\varepsilon)$ with $f(x+\varepsilon)$ is very good.

$\endgroup$

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.