Monotonicity of function at a point

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












The question says :




Let
$$f(x)=begincases
-x^3+fracb^3-b^2+b-1b^2+3b+2 &:0le xlt1\ 2x-3 &:1le xle3endcases$$. Find all possible values of b such that f(x)has the smallest value at $x=1$.




Since this question was an example question, the solution said,




The Limiting value of f(x) from the left of $x=1$ should be either greater or equal to the value of the function at $x=1$.




My question is for $x=1$ to have the smallest possible value, shouldn't the limiting value be Less than or equal to the function at $x=1$?



The answer is $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$







share|cite|improve this question






















  • "Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:15










  • Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
    – Sobi
    Aug 21 at 8:16







  • 1




    @DonAntonio: This is a fairly well known notion, although it's often not mentioned in elementary calculus texts. It's in Spivak's calculus book, however. See Can a function be increasing at a point? for a general discussion, and see Brown/Darji/Larsen's Nowhere monotone functions and functions of nonmonotonic type for a relatively accessible paper involving this notion.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:28






  • 1




    @DaveL.Renfro "Function increasing at a point" I've heard, though I think it is not very common. Monotonicity is what sounded weird.
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:56






  • 1




    @DevashishKaushik: Monotonicity at $x$ means "non-decreasing at $x$ OR non-increasing at $x.$ Also, this notion, as well as montonicity on an interval, monotonicity on a set (that doesn't have to be an interval), etc. are defined independently of the idea of a derivative, and in fact make sense for nowhere differentiable functions. You're conflating theorems that relate derivatives to monotonicity behavior with definitions.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:58














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












The question says :




Let
$$f(x)=begincases
-x^3+fracb^3-b^2+b-1b^2+3b+2 &:0le xlt1\ 2x-3 &:1le xle3endcases$$. Find all possible values of b such that f(x)has the smallest value at $x=1$.




Since this question was an example question, the solution said,




The Limiting value of f(x) from the left of $x=1$ should be either greater or equal to the value of the function at $x=1$.




My question is for $x=1$ to have the smallest possible value, shouldn't the limiting value be Less than or equal to the function at $x=1$?



The answer is $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$







share|cite|improve this question






















  • "Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:15










  • Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
    – Sobi
    Aug 21 at 8:16







  • 1




    @DonAntonio: This is a fairly well known notion, although it's often not mentioned in elementary calculus texts. It's in Spivak's calculus book, however. See Can a function be increasing at a point? for a general discussion, and see Brown/Darji/Larsen's Nowhere monotone functions and functions of nonmonotonic type for a relatively accessible paper involving this notion.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:28






  • 1




    @DaveL.Renfro "Function increasing at a point" I've heard, though I think it is not very common. Monotonicity is what sounded weird.
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:56






  • 1




    @DevashishKaushik: Monotonicity at $x$ means "non-decreasing at $x$ OR non-increasing at $x.$ Also, this notion, as well as montonicity on an interval, monotonicity on a set (that doesn't have to be an interval), etc. are defined independently of the idea of a derivative, and in fact make sense for nowhere differentiable functions. You're conflating theorems that relate derivatives to monotonicity behavior with definitions.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:58












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











The question says :




Let
$$f(x)=begincases
-x^3+fracb^3-b^2+b-1b^2+3b+2 &:0le xlt1\ 2x-3 &:1le xle3endcases$$. Find all possible values of b such that f(x)has the smallest value at $x=1$.




Since this question was an example question, the solution said,




The Limiting value of f(x) from the left of $x=1$ should be either greater or equal to the value of the function at $x=1$.




My question is for $x=1$ to have the smallest possible value, shouldn't the limiting value be Less than or equal to the function at $x=1$?



The answer is $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$







share|cite|improve this question














The question says :




Let
$$f(x)=begincases
-x^3+fracb^3-b^2+b-1b^2+3b+2 &:0le xlt1\ 2x-3 &:1le xle3endcases$$. Find all possible values of b such that f(x)has the smallest value at $x=1$.




Since this question was an example question, the solution said,




The Limiting value of f(x) from the left of $x=1$ should be either greater or equal to the value of the function at $x=1$.




My question is for $x=1$ to have the smallest possible value, shouldn't the limiting value be Less than or equal to the function at $x=1$?



The answer is $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 21 at 9:12









Anik Bhowmick

478317




478317










asked Aug 21 at 8:13









albert jokelin

132




132











  • "Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:15










  • Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
    – Sobi
    Aug 21 at 8:16







  • 1




    @DonAntonio: This is a fairly well known notion, although it's often not mentioned in elementary calculus texts. It's in Spivak's calculus book, however. See Can a function be increasing at a point? for a general discussion, and see Brown/Darji/Larsen's Nowhere monotone functions and functions of nonmonotonic type for a relatively accessible paper involving this notion.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:28






  • 1




    @DaveL.Renfro "Function increasing at a point" I've heard, though I think it is not very common. Monotonicity is what sounded weird.
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:56






  • 1




    @DevashishKaushik: Monotonicity at $x$ means "non-decreasing at $x$ OR non-increasing at $x.$ Also, this notion, as well as montonicity on an interval, monotonicity on a set (that doesn't have to be an interval), etc. are defined independently of the idea of a derivative, and in fact make sense for nowhere differentiable functions. You're conflating theorems that relate derivatives to monotonicity behavior with definitions.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:58
















  • "Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:15










  • Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
    – Sobi
    Aug 21 at 8:16







  • 1




    @DonAntonio: This is a fairly well known notion, although it's often not mentioned in elementary calculus texts. It's in Spivak's calculus book, however. See Can a function be increasing at a point? for a general discussion, and see Brown/Darji/Larsen's Nowhere monotone functions and functions of nonmonotonic type for a relatively accessible paper involving this notion.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:28






  • 1




    @DaveL.Renfro "Function increasing at a point" I've heard, though I think it is not very common. Monotonicity is what sounded weird.
    – DonAntonio
    Aug 21 at 8:56






  • 1




    @DevashishKaushik: Monotonicity at $x$ means "non-decreasing at $x$ OR non-increasing at $x.$ Also, this notion, as well as montonicity on an interval, monotonicity on a set (that doesn't have to be an interval), etc. are defined independently of the idea of a derivative, and in fact make sense for nowhere differentiable functions. You're conflating theorems that relate derivatives to monotonicity behavior with definitions.
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Aug 21 at 8:58















"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
– DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15




"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
– DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15












Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
– Sobi
Aug 21 at 8:16





Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
– Sobi
Aug 21 at 8:16





1




1




@DonAntonio: This is a fairly well known notion, although it's often not mentioned in elementary calculus texts. It's in Spivak's calculus book, however. See Can a function be increasing at a point? for a general discussion, and see Brown/Darji/Larsen's Nowhere monotone functions and functions of nonmonotonic type for a relatively accessible paper involving this notion.
– Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:28




@DonAntonio: This is a fairly well known notion, although it's often not mentioned in elementary calculus texts. It's in Spivak's calculus book, however. See Can a function be increasing at a point? for a general discussion, and see Brown/Darji/Larsen's Nowhere monotone functions and functions of nonmonotonic type for a relatively accessible paper involving this notion.
– Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:28




1




1




@DaveL.Renfro "Function increasing at a point" I've heard, though I think it is not very common. Monotonicity is what sounded weird.
– DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:56




@DaveL.Renfro "Function increasing at a point" I've heard, though I think it is not very common. Monotonicity is what sounded weird.
– DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:56




1




1




@DevashishKaushik: Monotonicity at $x$ means "non-decreasing at $x$ OR non-increasing at $x.$ Also, this notion, as well as montonicity on an interval, monotonicity on a set (that doesn't have to be an interval), etc. are defined independently of the idea of a derivative, and in fact make sense for nowhere differentiable functions. You're conflating theorems that relate derivatives to monotonicity behavior with definitions.
– Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58




@DevashishKaushik: Monotonicity at $x$ means "non-decreasing at $x$ OR non-increasing at $x.$ Also, this notion, as well as montonicity on an interval, monotonicity on a set (that doesn't have to be an interval), etc. are defined independently of the idea of a derivative, and in fact make sense for nowhere differentiable functions. You're conflating theorems that relate derivatives to monotonicity behavior with definitions.
– Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










Notice that $f$ is monotonically decreasing on $[0,1)$ and monotonically increasing on $[1,3]$. Now, if you want $f$ to attain minimum value at $1$, then $f(x) geq f(1) , forall x in [0,1)$. Hence, the left limit would be greater that or equal to $f(1)$.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    No, you are looking at it the wrong way.



    The question asked for a condition so that $ f(x) $ attains it's smallest value ( has a global minimum) at $x=1$). This means that we want $ f(1) $ to be the smallest value that $f$ attains.



    Clearly, the limiting value should be greater and not less than the value of the function.






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      $f$ is decreasing on $[0,1)$ and increasing on $[1,3]$. Hence $f(1)$ is the minimum iff $f(1) geq f(1-)$ which means $-1 geq -1+frac (1+b^2)(b-1) (1+b)(2+b)$ or $frac (b-1) (1+b)(2+b)leq 0$ . It is easy to find values of $b$ from this. (The function is not defined for $b=-1$ and $b=-2$ so consider $b$ in $(-infty, -2),(-2,-1)$ and $(1,infty$)).






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        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',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: false,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        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%2f2889602%2fmonotonicity-of-function-at-a-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest






























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted










        Notice that $f$ is monotonically decreasing on $[0,1)$ and monotonically increasing on $[1,3]$. Now, if you want $f$ to attain minimum value at $1$, then $f(x) geq f(1) , forall x in [0,1)$. Hence, the left limit would be greater that or equal to $f(1)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          Notice that $f$ is monotonically decreasing on $[0,1)$ and monotonically increasing on $[1,3]$. Now, if you want $f$ to attain minimum value at $1$, then $f(x) geq f(1) , forall x in [0,1)$. Hence, the left limit would be greater that or equal to $f(1)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer
























            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted






            Notice that $f$ is monotonically decreasing on $[0,1)$ and monotonically increasing on $[1,3]$. Now, if you want $f$ to attain minimum value at $1$, then $f(x) geq f(1) , forall x in [0,1)$. Hence, the left limit would be greater that or equal to $f(1)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Notice that $f$ is monotonically decreasing on $[0,1)$ and monotonically increasing on $[1,3]$. Now, if you want $f$ to attain minimum value at $1$, then $f(x) geq f(1) , forall x in [0,1)$. Hence, the left limit would be greater that or equal to $f(1)$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Aug 21 at 8:43

























            answered Aug 21 at 8:36









            SinTan1729

            2,130521




            2,130521




















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                No, you are looking at it the wrong way.



                The question asked for a condition so that $ f(x) $ attains it's smallest value ( has a global minimum) at $x=1$). This means that we want $ f(1) $ to be the smallest value that $f$ attains.



                Clearly, the limiting value should be greater and not less than the value of the function.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  No, you are looking at it the wrong way.



                  The question asked for a condition so that $ f(x) $ attains it's smallest value ( has a global minimum) at $x=1$). This means that we want $ f(1) $ to be the smallest value that $f$ attains.



                  Clearly, the limiting value should be greater and not less than the value of the function.






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    No, you are looking at it the wrong way.



                    The question asked for a condition so that $ f(x) $ attains it's smallest value ( has a global minimum) at $x=1$). This means that we want $ f(1) $ to be the smallest value that $f$ attains.



                    Clearly, the limiting value should be greater and not less than the value of the function.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    No, you are looking at it the wrong way.



                    The question asked for a condition so that $ f(x) $ attains it's smallest value ( has a global minimum) at $x=1$). This means that we want $ f(1) $ to be the smallest value that $f$ attains.



                    Clearly, the limiting value should be greater and not less than the value of the function.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Aug 21 at 9:39

























                    answered Aug 21 at 8:26









                    DevashishKaushik

                    16914




                    16914




















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        $f$ is decreasing on $[0,1)$ and increasing on $[1,3]$. Hence $f(1)$ is the minimum iff $f(1) geq f(1-)$ which means $-1 geq -1+frac (1+b^2)(b-1) (1+b)(2+b)$ or $frac (b-1) (1+b)(2+b)leq 0$ . It is easy to find values of $b$ from this. (The function is not defined for $b=-1$ and $b=-2$ so consider $b$ in $(-infty, -2),(-2,-1)$ and $(1,infty$)).






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          $f$ is decreasing on $[0,1)$ and increasing on $[1,3]$. Hence $f(1)$ is the minimum iff $f(1) geq f(1-)$ which means $-1 geq -1+frac (1+b^2)(b-1) (1+b)(2+b)$ or $frac (b-1) (1+b)(2+b)leq 0$ . It is easy to find values of $b$ from this. (The function is not defined for $b=-1$ and $b=-2$ so consider $b$ in $(-infty, -2),(-2,-1)$ and $(1,infty$)).






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            $f$ is decreasing on $[0,1)$ and increasing on $[1,3]$. Hence $f(1)$ is the minimum iff $f(1) geq f(1-)$ which means $-1 geq -1+frac (1+b^2)(b-1) (1+b)(2+b)$ or $frac (b-1) (1+b)(2+b)leq 0$ . It is easy to find values of $b$ from this. (The function is not defined for $b=-1$ and $b=-2$ so consider $b$ in $(-infty, -2),(-2,-1)$ and $(1,infty$)).






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            $f$ is decreasing on $[0,1)$ and increasing on $[1,3]$. Hence $f(1)$ is the minimum iff $f(1) geq f(1-)$ which means $-1 geq -1+frac (1+b^2)(b-1) (1+b)(2+b)$ or $frac (b-1) (1+b)(2+b)leq 0$ . It is easy to find values of $b$ from this. (The function is not defined for $b=-1$ and $b=-2$ so consider $b$ in $(-infty, -2),(-2,-1)$ and $(1,infty$)).







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Aug 21 at 8:43

























                            answered Aug 21 at 8:37









                            Kavi Rama Murthy

                            23.3k2933




                            23.3k2933






















                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded


























                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2889602%2fmonotonicity-of-function-at-a-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest













































































                                這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                                How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                1st Magritte Awards