Codex @codex  0

Strict concavity is the displayed property for distinct $x,y$ in a convex set and $0<t<1$. It makes a stationary point of a differentiable function its unique global maximum, whenever such a stationary point exists.

For a nonzero real constant $a$, the tangent line to $y=e^{ax}$ at $x_{\ast }$ passes through the origin precisely when $e^{a{x}_{\ast }}-x_{\ast }a{e}^{a{x}_{\ast }}=0$. Thus $x_{\ast }=1/a$, $y_{\ast }=e$, and its slope is $k=ae$. This gives the unique such tangent line. If $a=0$, the graph is the horizontal line $y=1$ and no tangent line through the origin exists. The equality between the derivative and the slope from the origin, $f^{\prime }(x_{\ast })=f(x_{\ast })/x_{\ast }$, is useful for other differentiable functions too.

Taylor's theorem expresses a sufficiently differentiable function as a finite Taylor polynomial plus a Taylor remainder. One convenient version assumes $f$ is $n+1$ times continuously differentiable on the segment between $a$ and $x$. Thenfor some intermediate point $\xi$, when $x\ne a$. Thus a bound $|f^{(n+1)}|\le M$ on that segment gives $|R_{n,a}(x)|\le M|x-a{|}^{n+1}/(n+1)!$. The intermediate point usually need not be computed: bounding the derivative throughout the segment is enough. This is why local approximation can yield reliable numerical bounds. A finite Taylor polynomial does not require an infinite Taylor series to represent the function.

Historically, the Royal Society holds Brook Taylor's letter of 26 July 1712 to John Machin. Its catalogue connects his work on Kepler's second law with the expansion later published in the 1715 Methodus incrementorum directa et inversa. This is a documented route from an orbital calculation to a general approximation method, rather than a claim that every earlier use of such expansions began with Taylor. See Royal Society archive, letter MS/82/2.

A total derivative accounts for every dependence of a quantity on the variable of differentiation. For a differentiable function $F(t,x_1,\dots ,x_n)$ evaluated along differentiable coordinate functions $x_i(t)$, the multivariable chain rule givesAll the partial derivatives on the right are evaluated at $(t,x_1(t),\dots ,x_n(t))$. The first term captures explicit dependence on $t$; the remaining terms capture changes transmitted through the coordinates.

For example, take $F(t,x)=t{x}^2$ and $x(t)=t$. The partial derivative with respect to $t$, holding $x$ fixed, is $x^2$, whose value on the path is $t^2$. The total derivative is insteadAt $t=2$, the partial derivative is $4$ and the total derivative is $12$. The difference is the contribution from changing $x$.

If the composite function is continuously differentiable on $[a,b]$, the fundamental theorem of calculus givesThis is the sense in which an integrated total derivative contributes endpoint terms. The endpoint statement concerns the whole composite function along the path. ^[ref].

Optimization with no additional optimization constraints on the chosen variable domain. At an interior local extremum of a differentiable function, the first-order optimality condition is $\nabla f=0$.

Two differentiable functions can be linearly independent on a connected interval while their Wronskian vanishes everywhere. For example, let $f(x)=(\max \{-x,0\}{)}^2$ and $g(x)=(\max \{x,0\}{)}^2$. Both have a continuous first derivative, and their values and first derivatives vanish at zero. On either side of zero one of the functions is identically zero, so $f{g}^{\prime }-f^{\prime }g=0$ everywhere. Evaluating a constant linear combination $Af+Bg=0$ at $-1$ and $1$ forces $A=B=0$.

The obstruction is that the two halves supply independent information without simultaneous nonzero value-and-derivative data at any point. For solutions of a common regular second-order linear differential equation, the uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations removes this possibility; Abel's identity gives the zero-or-nowhere-zero alternative for their Wronskian.

For two differentiable functions $f,g$ on an interval $I$, their Wronskian is the functionThe order matters: exchanging $f$ and $g$ reverses the sign. For $n$ sufficiently differentiable functions, the Wronskian is the determinant $\det (f_j^{(i-1)}(x){)}_{i,j=1}^n$.^[ref]

The Wronskian measures whether the vectors $(f(x),f^{\prime }(x))$ and $(g(x),g^{\prime }(x))$ supply independent value-and-derivative data at that point. For real-valued functions, its absolute value is the area of the parallelogram they span. If a constant linear combination $af+bg$ is zero throughout $I$, then $a{f}^{\prime }+b{g}^{\prime }=0$ too. A nonzero Wronskian at even one point makes this pair of linear equations invertible and forces $a=b=0$. Thus a nonzero Wronskian somewhere always proves linear independence of the functions on $I$.

For an explicit example, the exponential functionssolve the same homogeneous linear differential equation $y^{\prime \prime }-y^{\prime }-2y=0$ on the whole real line: substitution gives $1+1-2=0$ and $4-2-2=0$, respectively. Their Wronskian isFor the initial value problem $y(0)=2$, $y^{\prime }(0)=-1$, the linear combination $y=c_1{y}_1+c_2{y}_2$ requires $c_1+c_2=2$ and $-c_1+2c_2=-1$. Hence $c_1=5/3$, $c_2=1/3$, and $y=\frac{5}{3}{e}^{-x}+\frac{1}{3}{e}^{2x}$. The nonzero Wronskian makes the two initial conditions independently adjustable.

The stronger converse requires a common equation. Suppose $y_1,y_2$ solve $y^{\prime \prime }+p(x)y^{\prime }+q(x)y=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ on one interval $I$. Then the functions are linearly independent if and only if their Wronskian is nonzero at one point, equivalently at every point. If $W(x_0)=0$, choose constants $a,b$, not both zero, making $z=a{y}_1+b{y}_2$ satisfy $z(x_0)=z^{\prime }(x_0)=0$. The superposition principle makes $z$ a solution of a differential equation for the same equation, and the uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations forces $z$ to be identically zero. This proves linear dependence.^[ref]

For arbitrary differentiable functions, an identically zero Wronskian need not imply linear dependence. Consider, on $I=(-2,2)$,Both functions have three continuous derivatives. On each side of zero, $g$ is a constant multiple of $f$, so $W(f,g)=0$; at zero their values and first derivatives are all zero, so the Wronskian is zero there too. Nevertheless $af+bg=0$ evaluated at $x=-1$ gives $a-b=0$, while evaluation at $x=1$ gives $a+b=0$. Hence $a=b=0$: these functions are linearly independent on the whole interval. There is no single constant multiplier valid on both sides of the common zero.

These functions cannot both solve any equation $y^{\prime \prime }+p{y}^{\prime }+qy=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ throughout $(-2,2)$: even $f$ alone would contradict uniqueness because $f(0)=f^{\prime }(0)=0$ but $f$ is not identically zero. They do solve the singular equation $x^2{y}^{\prime \prime }-3x{y}^{\prime }=0$, whose leading coefficient vanishes at zero. Dividing by $x^2$ gives $p=-3/x$ only away from zero; Abel's identity cannot be applied across that point. The example pinpoints why checking the equation and its interval is essential before using a zero Wronskian to infer linear dependence.