8
$\begingroup$

In the fourth edition of "Introduction to Real Analysis" by Bartle and Sherbert, theorem 6.2.3 (Rolle's theorem) states,

Suppose that f is continuous on a closed interval $I := [a, b]$, that the derivative of $f$ exists at every point of the open interval $(a, b)$, and that $f(a) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists at least one point $c$ in $(a, b)$ such that the derivative of $f$ is zero at $c$.

Now, why are we taking $f(a)=0=f(b)$? Is $f(a)=f(b)$ not sufficient?

$\endgroup$
12
$\begingroup$

You are right, taking $f(a) = f(b)$ is sufficient.

But, one can prove the theorem in this general scenario using the theorem for the case $f(a) = 0 = f(b)$, as follows:

Assume Rolle's theorem as stated in the question details is true. Let $f$ be a function satisfying the same hypotheses, except that $f(a) = f(b) = k$, where $k$ is not necessarily equal to zero. Then, the function $g(x) = f(x) - k$ satisfies the hypotheses of Rolle's theorem, and so there is a point $c$ such that $g'(c) = 0$. But $g'(c) = f'(c)$, so we are done.

So, it doesn't really matter which one we use, as both versions are seen to be equivalent to each other.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If by 'right statement' OP means 'most general', then no we don't need f(a),f(b) to equal zero. Better to state in the more general. And Rolle's Theorem not always about roots (f(a)=f(b)=0). The version I was taught was simply a formalization that between two points with equal y-value, there is a peak with zero derivative. $\endgroup$ – smci Aug 5 '18 at 23:51
  • $\begingroup$ This could be an answer on its own. $\endgroup$ – Brahadeesh Aug 6 '18 at 3:55
9
$\begingroup$

Yes, you are right: $f(a)=f(b)$ is enough. However, it is usual to add the condition $=0$ after $f(a)=f(b)$ so that the theorem becomes: between two roots of $f$, there's a root of $f'$, which is the original theorem due Michel Rolle (who stated it for polynomials only).

Anyway, this is a moot point, since both statements are just a particular case of the Mean Value Theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. It was really helpful. $\endgroup$ – U Know me Aug 4 '18 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ I'm glad I could help. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Aug 4 '18 at 17:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ OTOH, the usual way to prove the Mean Value Theorem is by applying the theorem of Rolle. Depending on how much one 'groks' working with derivatives, the step from the general ($f(a) = f(b)$ but not necessarily $=0$) version of Rolle to the Mean Value Theorem is not much bigger than from the "$f(a) = f(b)=0$" version of Rolle to the general one. $\endgroup$ – Ingix Aug 4 '18 at 17:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ +1 for the history of these theorems. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Aug 5 '18 at 5:47
5
$\begingroup$

The two versions are clearly equivalent. Suppose just $f(a)=f(b)$. Let $g(t)=f(t)-f(a)$. Then $g(a)=g(b)=0$, so the formally weaker version shows $g'(c)=0$, hence $f'(c)=0$ for some $c$.

$\endgroup$

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.