f(x)=3-absolutevalue(x-3) find the derivative.
Rewrite it as a piece-wise function\[ f(x) = 2-|x-3| = \begin{cases} 2-(x-3) &=&-x-1 &x>0\\ 2- (-(x-3))& =&x-5 &x<0 \end{cases}\] Now we can differentiate each piece. \[ f'(x) = \begin{cases} (-x-1)' &=&-1 &x>0\\ (x-5)'&=&1 &x<0 \end{cases} \]
Whoops it should say: \[ f'(x) = \begin{cases} (-x-1)' &=&-1 &x>3\\ (x-5)'&=&1 &x<3 \end{cases} \]
\[ f(x) = 2-|x-3| = \begin{cases} 2-(x-3) &=&-x-1 &x-3>0 \implies x>3\\ 2- (-(x-3))& =&x-5 &x-3<0 \implies x<3 \end{cases} \]
I'm trying to determine if I can use Rolle's Theorem for this function... I'm still unsure. Oh and this is on the interval [0,6]
What are you trying to show?
My instructions are: Determine whether Rolle's Theorem can be applied to f on the closed interval [a,b]. If Rolle's Theorem can be applied, find all values of c in the open interval (a,b) such that f'(c)=0.
The problem with Rolle's theorem is that it requires the function be differentiable on the interval, which in this case isn't true. \(f(x)\) is not differentiable at 3.
Basically your interval can't contain \(3\).
Okay, I sort of get it...
Anyway it's pretty obvious that \(f'(x)\neq 0\) for all \(x\) since we know it is either \(-1\) or \(1\).
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!