Extrema shift

Calculus Level 3

If the function f ( x ) = e x a x f(x)=e^{x}-ax has two distinct roots x 1 x_1 and x 2 x_2 , what is always true about x 1 x_{1} and x 2 x_{2} ?

x 1 + x 2 < 2 , x 1 x 2 > 1 x_{1}+x_{2}<2,x_{1}x_{2}>1 x 1 + x 2 > 2 , x 1 x 2 < 1 x_{1}+x_{2}>2,x_{1}x_{2}<1 x 1 + x 2 < 2 , x 1 x 2 < 1 x_{1}+x_{2}<2,x_{1}x_{2}<1 x 1 + x 2 > 2 , x 1 x 2 > 1 x_{1}+x_{2}>2,x_{1}x_{2}>1

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

Max Patrick
Oct 3, 2019

APOLOGIES. THIS PROOF CONTAINS AN ERROR AND I AM WORKING ON AN UPDATE. Let us write

y = e x a x y=e^{x}-ax

There is a real value of y y for every real x x , which means that between the two roots, there is a stationary point (zero gradient).

d y / d x = e x + a = 0 dy/dx=e^x+a=0 at the stationary point

e x = a e^x=a

x = l n a x=ln a

and a a is therefore positive, and the curve is U-shaped tending to +inf .

y < 0 y<0 therefore, when x = l n ( a ) x=ln(a) , or there would be no roots.

e l n ( a ) a l n ( a ) < 0 e^{ln(a)}-aln(a)<0

e a < 0 e-a<0

a > e a>e


let our roots be x = p x=p and x = q x=q . such that p > q p>q . easier to read

e p = a p e^{p}=ap and e q = a q e^{q}=aq

e p + q = a 2 p q e^{p+q}=a^{2}pq ...........1 THIS IS CORRECT

p + q = 2 l n ( a ) + l n ( p ) + l n ( q ) > 2 p+q=2 ln(a)+ln(p)+ln(q) > 2 since we know l n ( a ) > 1 ln(a)>1 since a > e a>e THIS IS THE ERROR

p + q > 2 \boxed{p+q>2} THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT YET JUSTIFIED


rename the two roots p = l n ( a ) + m p=ln(a)+m and q = l n ( a ) n q=ln(a)-n . We know that m and n are positive as the roots are either side of x = l n ( a ) x=ln(a)

e l n ( a ) + m a l n ( a ) a m = 0 e^{ln(a)+m}-aln(a)-am=0 and e l n ( a ) n a l n ( a ) + a n = 0 e^{ln(a)-n}-aln(a)+an=0

take the difference on both sides

e n + e m = ( n m ) e^{-n}+e^m=(n-m)

therefore n m > 0 n-m>0

l n ( a ) + m + l n ( a ) n < 2 l n ( a ) ln(a)+m+ln(a)-n<2ln(a)

p + q < 2 l n ( a ) p+q<2ln(a)

e p + q < a 2 e^{p+q}<a^2 ...........2

take an equation (1) from above

e p + q = a 2 p q e^{p+q}=a^{2}pq

p q = e p + q / a 2 pq=e^{p+q}/a^{2}

from equation 2 above we know RHS<1, therefore

p q < 1 \boxed{pq<1}

and we are done.

You say: 2 ln a + ln p + ln q > 2 2 \ln a + \ln p + \ln q > 2 , because ln a > 1 \ln a > 1 , but this conclusion requires both ln p \ln p and ln q \ln q to be non-negative.

Later, you assert p q < 1 pq < 1 , which forces at least one of ln p \ln p or ln q \ln q to be negative.

Your proof doesn't work.

Richard Desper - 1 year, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Yes you are correct. I will mark the proof and have another go. Thank you.

Max Patrick - 1 year, 8 months ago

1 pending report

Vote up reports you agree with

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...