Monotonicity of function at a point

Clash 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 $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$
derivatives maxima-minima
 |Â
show 5 more comments
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 $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$
derivatives maxima-minima
"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
â DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15
Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58
 |Â
show 5 more comments
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 $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$
derivatives maxima-minima
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 $bin (-2,-1)cup (1,+infty)$
derivatives maxima-minima
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?
â DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15
Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58
 |Â
show 5 more comments
"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
â DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15
Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58
"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
â DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15
"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
â DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15
Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
â Sobi
Aug 21 at 8:16
Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58
 |Â
show 5 more comments
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 $f(1)$.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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 $(1,infty$)).
add a comment |Â
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 $f(1)$.
add a comment |Â
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 $f(1)$.
add a comment |Â
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 $f(1)$.
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 $f(1)$.
edited Aug 21 at 8:43
answered Aug 21 at 8:36
SinTan1729
2,130521
2,130521
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
edited Aug 21 at 9:39
answered Aug 21 at 8:26
DevashishKaushik
16914
16914
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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 $(1,infty$)).
add a comment |Â
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 $(1,infty$)).
add a comment |Â
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 $(1,infty$)).
$f$ 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 $(1,infty$)).
edited Aug 21 at 8:43
answered Aug 21 at 8:37
Kavi Rama Murthy
23.3k2933
23.3k2933
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"Monotonicity at a point"? What is that?
â DonAntonio
Aug 21 at 8:15
Try to sketch a picture of your situation.
â 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.
â 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.
â 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.
â Dave L. Renfro
Aug 21 at 8:58