Using Rolle's theorem to show an equation has only one real root The Next CEO of Stack...

Which one is the true statement?

Why the difference in type-inference over the as-pattern in two similar function definitions?

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin

Can Plant Growth be repeatedly cast on the same area to exponentially increase the yield of harvests there (more than twice)?

Can MTA send mail via a relay without being told so?

Would a completely good Muggle be able to use a wand?

How to write a definition with variants?

What is meant by "large scale tonal organization?"

Why do remote US companies require working in the US?

If the heap is zero-initialized for security, then why is the stack merely uninitialized?

The past simple of "gaslight" – "gaslighted" or "gaslit"?

Are police here, aren't itthey?

What flight has the highest ratio of timezone difference to flight time?

Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?

What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

Grabbing quick drinks

Can you be charged for obstruction for refusing to answer questions?

Why doesn't UK go for the same deal Japan has with EU to resolve Brexit?

Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?

Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"

If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?

What did we know about the Kessel run before the prequels?

Dominated convergence theorem - what sequence?



Using Rolle's theorem to show an equation has only one real root



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowProving number of roots of a function using Rolle's theoremUsing the Intermediate Value Theorem and Rolle's theorem to determine number of rootsProve using Rolle's Theorem that an equation has exactly one real solution.Proof polynomial has only one real root.prove to have at least one real root by Rolle's theoremProve that the equation $x + cos(x) + e^{x} = 0$ has *exactly* one rootProof using Rolle's theoremUsing Rolle's theorem and IVT, show that $x^4-7x^3+9=0$ has exactly $2$ roots.Proving the equation $4x^3+6x^2+5x=-7$ has has only one solution using Rolle's or Lagrange's theoremProve, without using Rolle's theorem, that a polynomial $f$ with $f'(a) = 0 = f'(b)$ for some $a < b$, has at most one root












2












$begingroup$



Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
$$e^x=1+x$$




By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$



    Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
    $$e^x=1+x$$




    By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$



      Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
      $$e^x=1+x$$




      By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$





      Applying Rolle's Theorem, prove that the given equation has only one root:
      $$e^x=1+x$$




      By inspection, we can say that $x=0$ is one root of the equation. But how can we use Rolle's theorem to prove this root is unique?







      calculus applications rolles-theorem






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 25 mins ago









      Eevee Trainer

      9,05731640




      9,05731640










      asked 33 mins ago









      blue_eyed_...blue_eyed_...

      3,30221755




      3,30221755






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).



          Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.



          $f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).



          Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the second para.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            24 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            22 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            17 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            6 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            3 mins ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3169097%2fusing-rolles-theorem-to-show-an-equation-has-only-one-real-root%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).



          Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.



          $f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).



          Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the second para.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            24 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            22 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            17 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            6 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            3 mins ago
















          4












          $begingroup$

          Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).



          Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.



          $f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).



          Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the second para.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            24 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            22 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            17 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            6 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            3 mins ago














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).



          Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.



          $f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).



          Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Let $f(x) = e^x - 1 - x$, and we observe that $f(0)=0$. $f$ is also obviously continuous and differentiable over the real numbers (if you wish to verify that in detail, you can do that separately).



          Suppose there exists a second root $b neq 0$ such that $f(0) = f(b) = 0$. Then there exists some $c in (0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$ if $b<0$) such that $f'(c) = 0$ by Rolle's theorem.



          $f'(x) = e^x - 1$, however, which satisfies $f'(x) = 0$ only when $x=0$, which is not in any interval $(0,b)$ (or $(b,0)$).



          Thus, since no satisfactory $c$ exists, we conclude the equation only has one real root.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 5 mins ago

























          answered 27 mins ago









          Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer

          9,05731640




          9,05731640












          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the second para.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            24 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            22 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            17 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            6 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            3 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I don't understand the second para.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            24 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            22 mins ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            17 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
            $endgroup$
            – Eevee Trainer
            6 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
            $endgroup$
            – blue_eyed_...
            3 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          I don't understand the second para.
          $endgroup$
          – blue_eyed_...
          24 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          I don't understand the second para.
          $endgroup$
          – blue_eyed_...
          24 mins ago












          $begingroup$
          We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
          $endgroup$
          – Eevee Trainer
          22 mins ago






          $begingroup$
          We want to show that there exists no second (unique) root, so we seek a contradiction by supposing it exists. Okay, so if the second root is not unique, it is some real number $b$ that is not equal to our first root, $0$. If $b$ is a root, then we are ensured $f(b) =0$. Coincidentally, $f(b) = f(0)$, which gives us a situation in which Rolle's theorem applies. Then, there exists some point $c$ between $b$ and $0$ such that the derivative of $f$ is equal to zero.
          $endgroup$
          – Eevee Trainer
          22 mins ago






          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
          $endgroup$
          – blue_eyed_...
          17 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          Do we not need to check for continuity and differentiability of $f(x)$ in $[0,b]$ and $(0,b)$ respectively before applying Rolle's Theorem?
          $endgroup$
          – blue_eyed_...
          17 mins ago












          $begingroup$
          Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
          $endgroup$
          – Eevee Trainer
          6 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          Yeah, technically you do if you want to be rigorous (and that's a fair point to bring up). Though in this case it's one of those cases where it's "obvious" in the sense that $f$ is obviously continuous and differentiable over $Bbb R$. I suppose whether you want to prove that, or just state it as an obvious thing, depends on the rigor expected of you in your course.
          $endgroup$
          – Eevee Trainer
          6 mins ago












          $begingroup$
          With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
          $endgroup$
          – blue_eyed_...
          3 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          With regard to my course, we need to prove those conditions of Rolle's Theorem everytime we are willing to use it.
          $endgroup$
          – blue_eyed_...
          3 mins ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3169097%2fusing-rolles-theorem-to-show-an-equation-has-only-one-real-root%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          As a Security Precaution, the user account has been locked The Next CEO of Stack OverflowMS...

          Список ссавців Італії Природоохоронні статуси | Список |...

          Українські прізвища Зміст Історичні відомості |...