{"id":1384,"date":"2017-11-01T19:04:50","date_gmt":"2017-11-01T23:04:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/?p=1384"},"modified":"2017-11-03T08:37:46","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T12:37:46","slug":"muddiest-point-1031","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/2017\/11\/01\/muddiest-point-1031\/","title":{"rendered":"Muddiest Point 10\/31"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>Without Loss of Generality<\/h3>\n<p>In our proof of the Interior Extremum Theorem, we advanced our argument by supposing that <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cgeq+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;geq f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/> in order to find a sign for <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%27%28c%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f&#039;(c)\" class=\"latex\" \/> so that the order limit theorem could be used. In doing this we put a restriction on the element <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=x&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"x\" class=\"latex\" \/> in our proof that is not necessarily true for all $lates x\\in (a,b)$. To complete the proof, we therefore need to show that we have not lost generality by doing this, and our conclusion holds even when\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%3Cf%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&lt;f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/>.<\/p>\n<p>One way to do this would be to repeat the proof, replacing\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cgeq+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;geq f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/> with\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%3Cf%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&lt;f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/> in the second part, but then the proof would not be concise.<\/p>\n<p>A better way to do this would be to state that\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cgeq+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;geq f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/> without loss of generality and provide a short justification of why generality is not lost before continuing the proof under the assumption\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cgeq+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;geq f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/>. Another way that we could have written the &#8220;without loss of generality&#8221; statement in the proof of theorem 5.1.5 is &#8220;It is sufficient to prove that <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cleq+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;leq 0\" class=\"latex\" \/> for\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cgeq+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;geq f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/>, since when <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%3C+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&lt; f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/>, <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=x%3Ec&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"x&gt;c\" class=\"latex\" \/>, so the <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%27%28c%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f&#039;(c)\" class=\"latex\" \/> is still negative. Thus, it follows that\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%5Cleq+0&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&#92;leq 0\" class=\"latex\" \/> is also true when\u00a0<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/latex.php?latex=f%28c%29%3C+f%28x%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002\" alt=\"f(c)&lt; f(x)\" class=\"latex\" \/>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Another way the phrase &#8220;without loss of generality&#8221; is used in proofs is to point out when new observations actually add no new restrictions to the proof.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Without Loss of Generality In our proof of the Interior Extremum Theorem, we advanced our argument by supposing that in order to find a sign for so that the order limit theorem could be used. In doing this we put a restriction on the element in our proof that is not necessarily true for all [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3528,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[58822],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-muddiest-point"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7L4E1-mk","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3528"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/math320\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}