Proof
Prerequisite proofs used below
Fix an integer and the Euclidean norm on . A set is bounded if it lies in some finite-radius ball, closed if its complement is open, and compact if every cover by open subsets of has a finite subcover. We use real completeness, including the nested closed interval property.
Heine–Borel in finite-dimensional Euclidean space
Theorem. A set is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded. The empty set satisfies all three properties.
Compact implies bounded. The open balls , an integer, cover . A finite subcover puts inside the largest of these balls.
Compact implies closed. Suppose and . The balls , , cover . Choose a finite subcover with centers and set . If lies in the ball centered at , the triangle inequality gives . Hence misses , so the complement is open.
Closed and bounded implies compact. Let nonempty be closed and bounded. Enclose it in a closed cube with . Suppose an open cover of has no finite subcover. Divide each coordinate interval into two closed halves. The resulting closed subcubes cover . At least one subcube has intersection with that is not finitely coverable by the given family; otherwise the finite union of the finite subcovers would cover . Select such a subcube and repeat. This produces nested closed cubes with side length and not finitely coverable, hence nonempty.
For each coordinate, the nested interval property gives a common coordinate value. Together these give . Every pair of points in has distance at most , so the intersection contains only . Choose . Then . A closed set contains such a limit: if were in its open complement, a ball around would eventually contain outside , a contradiction. Thus .
One member of the cover contains , and openness gives for some . For sufficiently large , every point of is within of , so alone covers . This contradicts the selection of . Therefore every open cover has a finite subcover. The number is finite; replacing it by infinitely many subpieces would invalidate this argument.
Continuous images and extreme values
Theorem. If is compact and is continuous relative to , then is compact. In particular, a continuous on nonempty compact is bounded and attains its maximum and minimum.
Proof. An open cover of pulls back to relatively open sets , with open in . These cover , so finitely many suffice. Their corresponding cover , proving compactness. For scalar , the image is nonempty, closed and bounded by the theorem already proved in dimension one. Let . For each , the definition of supremum supplies with . Then , and closedness places in the image. Thus the maximum is attained. Applying the same argument to gives the minimum. This proves existence, not a formula for the maximizing input.
The derivative is a limit
Definition
Derivative at an interior point
For defined near , is differentiable at if the finite limit
exists. Equivalently , where as .
Differentiability at implies continuity there: write , and let . The converse fails: is continuous but not differentiable at zero because the left and right difference quotients tend to and .
Theorem
Fermat, Rolle and the mean value theorem
If a differentiable function has a local extremum at an interior point, its derivative there is zero. If , is continuous on , differentiable on , and , then there is with (Rolle). Consequently, under the same continuity and differentiability assumptions but without equal endpoints, some satisfies
Proof
From extrema to mean value
At a local maximum, the difference quotient for positive increments is nonpositive and for negative increments is nonnegative. If both converge to the same derivative, that derivative is zero. The minimum case is analogous. For Rolle, the extreme value theorem guarantees a maximum and minimum on . If the function is constant, any interior point works; otherwise at least one extremum is interior because the endpoint values agree, and Fermat applies. For the mean value theorem, subtract the affine function joining to and apply Rolle.
Worked example
A derivative bound controls a function
If on an interval and is continuous on any closed segment within it, then for the mean value theorem yields . Thus is Lipschitz and uniformly continuous there. The bound gives a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition for uniform continuity.
The theorem's interval hypotheses matter: on has equal endpoint values but is not differentiable at zero; no point in the open interval has derivative zero. A local derivative bound is also not automatically a single global bound.
Method comparison
Use the derivative definition at exceptional points and to justify foundational properties; use product and chain rules after their hypotheses are checked. Use the mean value theorem for finite differences and monotonicity: on an interval implies is nondecreasing there. A derivative equal to zero at one point does not imply a local extremum.
Practice
- Prove differentiability implies continuity at a point.
- Show has derivative zero at the origin but no local extremum there.
- If throughout an interval, prove is constant there.
- Why does Rolle's theorem not apply to on ?
Full solutions
- The difference quotient tends to the finite value ; multiplying it by gives .
- , but and for every , so the origin is neither a local maximum nor minimum.
- For any two points in the interval, the mean value theorem gives . Hence all values agree.
- It fails the differentiability hypothesis at the interior point zero, even though it is continuous and has equal endpoint values.
Synthesis
Differentiability is stronger than continuity. The mean value theorem links local derivatives to finite changes only when the function is continuous on the closed interval and differentiable inside.