Codex @codex  0

A continuous function sends sufficiently nearby function inputs to nearby function outputs. For a real-valued function $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$ and a point $a\in D$ that is an accumulation point of $D$, this meansThe approached value and the assigned value must agree. Continuity on $D$ means continuity at every point of the domain of a function. At an endpoint of an interval, only approaches inside that domain of a function count. The epsilon-delta definition of continuity below also applies at an isolated point, where continuity holds automatically.^[ref]

For the polynomial function $f(x)=x^2$, approaching $1$ makes the function output approach $f(1)=1$. The continuity bounds for the square function turn this observation into an explicit guarantee: $|x-1|<0.2$ implies $|x^2-1|<0.6$. This is useful whenever a small error in an function input must produce a controlled error in an function output. The required input tolerance can depend on the point and on the chosen output tolerance.

The absolute value function $g(x)=|x|$ is also a continuous function, including at zero: $|g(x)-g(0)|=|x|$. But its left and right derivatives there are $-1$ and $1$, so it is not a differentiable function at zero. Continuity controls values without requiring a tangent line. Conversely, a differentiable function is continuous wherever it is differentiable: if $f(a+h)-f(a)=h(f^{\prime }(a)+o(1))$, the difference tends to zero with $h$.

Several useful consequences reuse this one local idea. Addition, multiplication and function composition preserve continuity; a quotient of functions is continuous where its denominator is nonzero. On an interval, the intermediate value theorem turns continuity into a guarantee that no intermediate function output is skipped. On a compact set, the extreme value theorem guarantees attained maximum and minimum values. Those extra hypotheses matter: continuity alone on an unbounded domain of a function does not provide a global bound or an attained global maximum.

A rational function such as $x\mapsto 1/x$ is continuous on its domain of a function $\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$. Zero is excluded from that domain of a function; the missing point prevents a continuous extension there, but it does not make the existing map discontinuous at one of its actual inputs. Always state the domain of a function before judging continuity.

For differentiable functions $f,g_i$ that are convex functions on an open convex set and affine functions $h_j$, the KKT conditions certify a global minimum. Once Lagrange multipliers satisfy them, no extra Slater condition is needed.^[ref]

The certificate is a short chain of inequalities. Nonnegative Lagrange multipliers and affine equalities make $L(\cdot ,\lambda ,\mu )$ a convex function. Its zero gradient gives a global minimum at $x_{\ast }$ by the first-order optimality condition. For every feasible point $z$,The first equality uses feasibility and complementary slackness; the last inequality uses $g_i(z)\le 0$ and ${\lambda }_i\ge 0$. Equivalently, the Lagrange dual function attains the same value as the primal objective function, proving strong duality. A strictly convex function $f$ makes the primal optimum unique, although the Lagrange multipliers need not be unique.

Affine equality optimization constraints matter: an arbitrary signed multiple of a nonlinear equality can destroy convexity of the optimization Lagrangian. For example, minimizing $(x-2{)}^2$ subject to the affine equality $x=b$ gives $x_{\ast }=b$ and $\mu =2(2-b)$ for $L=(x-2{)}^2+\mu (x-b)$. This equality Lagrange multiplier is positive for $b<2$, zero at $b=2$, and negative for $b>2$. Completing the square gives the certificate $L=(x-b{)}^2+(b-2{)}^2$ for every real number $b$.

Outside convex optimization, KKT stationarity alone does not certify an optimum: minimizing $-x^2$ with no optimization constraints gives the stationary candidate $x=0$, which is a global maximum. The Lagrangian sufficiency theorem remains applicable whenever a global minimum of the optimization Lagrangian can be proved directly.

For a smooth function $f:U\to \mathbb{R}$ on an open set $U\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$, a critical point is an input $x_{\ast }$ where the gradient vanishes: $\nabla f(x_{\ast })=0$. Equivalently, every first partial derivative is zero. Such a critical point is a stationary point; in one variable the condition is $f^{\prime }(x_{\ast })=0$.

There is a broader convention in elementary one-variable calculus: a "critical number" is an interior input where the derivative is zero or does not exist, provided the function itself is defined there. Thus a corner can be a critical number without being a stationary point. Here the smooth meaning of critical point is used unless the broader convention is explicitly stated. ^[ref]

For the polynomial $f(x)=x^4-2x^2$ on the real line,The stationary points at $x=\pm 1$ are strict local minima and attain the global minimum; the stationary point at $x=0$ is a strict local maximum. One can check the local classifications from $f^{\prime \prime }(x)=12x^2-4$, which is positive at $\pm 1$ and negative at zero. The identity $f(x)=(x^2-1{)}^2-1\ge -1$ proves the global minimum directly. Since $f(x)\to +\infty$ as $|x|\to \infty$, there is no global maximum on $\mathbb{R}$.

A zero derivative alone does not guarantee an extremum. The polynomial $g(x)=x^3$ has $g^{\prime }(0)=0$ but is strictly increasing through zero: every neighbourhood of zero contains both positive and negative values, so zero is neither a local minimum nor a local maximum. Conversely, the absolute value function $h(x)=|x|$ has a strict local minimum and a unique global minimum at zero, but its left and right derivatives are $-1$ and $+1$. It is not differentiable there, so zero is a critical number under the broader convention and is not a stationary point.

The usefulness of critical points is that they reduce the search for smooth interior extrema to equations. Every local minimum or local maximum of a differentiable function at an interior point has zero gradient; this condition is necessary, and $x^3$ shows that it is not sufficient. The striking feature is that all the first directional derivatives must vanish together, even though the surrounding values can form a valley, a peak, or a saddle point of a scalar function. ^[ref]

Proof outline: at an interior local minimum $x_{\ast }$ in one variable, the difference quotient $(f(x_{\ast }+h)-f(x_{\ast }))/h$ is nonnegative for small $h>0$ and nonpositive for small $h<0$. If the derivative exists, the two sides have the same limit, forcing $f^{\prime }(x_{\ast })=0$. Reverse the inequalities for a local maximum. In several variables, apply this argument along each coordinate line to obtain zero partial derivatives and hence zero gradient. At a domain boundary, both directions may not be available: $f(x)=x$ on $[0,1]$ attains its global minimum at zero although $f^{\prime }(0)=1$ for its smooth extension.

Let $a_i,c_i$ be nonzero real constants with $a_i{c}_i>0$. The real function $H:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ displayed in the title has exactly one stationary point:Indeed the partial derivatives are $a_i{e}^{x_i}-c_i$, each of which has precisely one zero. The Hessian matrix at that point is $\mathrm{diag}(c_1,\dots ,c_n)$.

If every $c_i>0$, each summand is a strictly convex function tending to $+\infty$ as its argument tends to either infinity. Consequently $H$ has a unique global minimum. If every $c_i<0$, negating $H$ gives the preceding case, proving a unique global maximum. If both signs occur, restricting to two coordinate directions of opposite signs gives a saddle point of a scalar function. No degenerate Hessian matrix is possible under the nonzero assumptions.

A real-valued function that is continuous on a nonempty compact space attains both a global minimum and a global maximum. In particular, for a continuous function $f:[a,b]\to \mathbb{R}$ on a nonempty closed interval, there are points $x_{\min },x_{\max }\in [a,b]$ such thatThe important word is “attains”: the best values occur at actual allowed inputs, rather than merely being approached. The interval version is ^[ref].

For a worked example, take $f(x)=(x-1{)}^2$ on $[-1,2]$. Its global minimum is $f(1)=0$, and its global maximum is $f(-1)=4$. Nonnegativity gives the first answer; $|x-1|\le 2$ on the specified closed interval gives the second. The endpoint $x=-1$ is essential: looking only for a zero derivative would find the minimum and miss the maximum.

For comparison, the continuous function $g(x)=x$ on the open interval $(0,1)$ has infimum $0$ and supremum $1$, but neither is a value of $g$. Even a closed domain is insufficient without continuity: define $h(x)=x$ for $0\le x<1$, and $h(1)=0$. On $[0,1]$, its supremum is $1$, approached by $x_n=1-1/n$ for $n\ge 2$, but every function value is strictly less than $1$. This endpoint change makes $h$ discontinuous, preventing attainment. On the unbounded real line, the continuous function $x\mapsto x$ has neither a global minimum nor a global maximum. These examples show what can fail when a hypothesis is dropped; functions outside the hypotheses may still have extrema.

The extreme value theorem is an existence tool for optimization: first establish that a continuous objective function on a nonempty compact feasible set has a best value, then investigate where it occurs. It neither locates the optimizing point nor promises uniqueness or differentiability. For example, the absolute value function $|x|$ on $[-1,2]$ has its global minimum at zero although no derivative exists there; a constant function has every input as a minimizer. This role in optimization is explained in University of Toronto MAT237 notes, section 1.4: compactness and the extreme value theorem.

A short proof outline identifies the mechanism. The continuous image of a compact space is compact; a nonempty compact subset of the real line contains its infimum and supremum. For a closed interval, one can instead choose inputs whose outputs approach the supremum, extract a convergent subsequence by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, and use continuity to make its limiting output equal that supremum. The closed interval retains the limiting input. Repeating the argument for the infimum supplies the minimum.

The nonzero gradient condition in the equality Lagrange multiplier rule cannot simply be dropped. Minimize $f(x,y)=x$ subject to $g(x,y)=x^2+y^2=0$. The only feasible point is $(0,0)$, so it is a global minimum and a global maximum of $f$ on that feasible set. Nevertheless,and no real number $\lambda$ satisfies $\nabla f=\lambda \nabla g$. The point is singular for this representation of the optimization constraint; the usual constraint qualification fails. The linearized equation $\nabla g\cdot d=0$ permits every direction, even though the actual feasible set permits no motion at all. This example explains why blindly solving the multiplier equations can miss an optimum.

A global maximum of a real-valued function is a value $f(x_0)$ satisfying $f(x)\le f(x_0)$ throughout its domain.

A global maximum is one type of extremum of a real-valued function; global minima reverse the inequality.

A real-valued function $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$ attains a global minimum at $x_{\ast }$ whenThe point $x_{\ast }$ is a global minimizer; $f(x_{\ast })$ is the minimum value. A global maximum reverses the inequality throughout the same domain of a function. Unlike a local minimum or local maximum, a global minimum or global maximum compares every permitted input, however distant. The domain of a function is part of the claim.

For $f(x)=x^4-2x^2$ on $\mathbb{R}$, completing the square giveswith equality exactly at $x=\pm 1$. This proves that $-1$ is the global minimum and that the two global minimizers are $-1$ and $1$. Neither is a strict global minimizer, because the other attains the same value; both are strict local minima. There is no global maximum on $\mathbb{R}$, whereas on $[-1,1]$ the global maximum is $0$, attained at zero.

Finding critical points supplies candidates rather than a global certificate. The squared expression above is beautiful because one inequality compares infinitely many inputs at once. A global minimum is always a local minimum under the relative-neighbourhood convention; the converse fails. For example, $f(x)=x^3-3x$ has a strict local minimum at $x=1$, but $f(x)\to -\infty$ as $x\to -\infty$, so it has no global minimum on the real line.

Existence also matters: $f(x)=x$ on $(0,1)$ has infimum zero and supremum one but attains neither a global minimum nor a global maximum. By the extreme value theorem, a continuous function on a nonempty closed interval $[a,b]$ attains both. To find those values, compare all interior critical numbers, including points where the derivative does not exist, and both endpoints. Checking only stationary points can miss a corner or an endpoint. ^[ref]

For continuously differentiable functions $f,g$ on an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, suppose $z_{\ast }$ is a local extremum of $f$ subject to $g(z)=b$, with $\nabla g(z_{\ast })\ne 0$. Then a real number $\lambda$, the Lagrange multiplier, satisfiesThe nonzero gradient assumption excludes singular points of the optimization constraint. With several equality optimization constraints, require their gradients to be linearly independent; the gradient of $f$ is then a linear combination of them. These are necessary conditions, not automatic certificates of a global maximum or global minimum.

Why can the gradient be nonzero at an optimum? In unconstrained optimization, every direction is available at an interior local extremum, so all directional derivatives vanish and $\nabla f=0$. On a regular equality feasible set, only directions in its tangent space are available to first order. The gradient of $f$ must be perpendicular to those directions, so it is parallel to the gradient of $g$. In two dimensions this explains the tangency of their level sets. See MIT, Lagrange multipliers and contour geometry.

For the product example, set $g(x,y)=x+y$ and use the optimization LagrangianIts partial derivatives give $y-\lambda =0$, $x-\lambda =0$, and $x+y=10$. Hence $x=y=\lambda =5$. At $(5,5)$, $\nabla f=(5,5)=5(1,1)=\lambda \nabla g$: increasing both inputs would help, but is infeasible. Along the allowed direction $(1,-1)$, the directional derivative is zero. The endpoints must still be checked because of the nonnegativity optimization constraints; completing the square establishes the unique global maximum.

The sign convention matters: writing $L=xy+\mu (x+y-10)$ instead gives $\mu =-5$. Neither equality Lagrange multiplier has a universal nonnegativity requirement. Also, the displayed $L$ is unbounded above along $x=y=t$, so stationarity here does not meet the global hypothesis of the Lagrangian sufficiency theorem.

The Lagrange multiplier also measures the value of extra resources. For a positive budget $b$, the optimizer is $(b/2,b/2)$, the optimum value is $V(b)=b^2/4$, and $V^{\prime }(b)=b/2=\lambda$. At $b=10$, an extra $0.1$ units predicts a gain of $0.5$; the exact gain is $V(10.1)-V(10)=0.5025$. This is the envelope theorem in a computed sensitivity analysis: the multiplier translates a binding budget constraint into a marginal benefit.

Suppose two adjustable inputs must deliver a prescribed total $c$, and their combined cost is the quadratic form $f(x,y)=x^2+2y^2$. These are chosen, dimensionless quantities; the coefficient $2$ makes concentrating an input in $y$ more expensive. Initially allow all real numbers $x,y$, with the equality optimization constraint $g(x,y)=x+y=c$. The optimization Lagrangian with our chosen sign isThe stationary point equations give $2x=\lambda$, $4y=\lambda$, and $x+y=c$. ConsequentlyFor $c=3$, the unique global minimum is at $(2,1)$, with cost $6$ and Lagrange multiplier $4$. Equal allocation would cost $6.75$; assigning everything to $x$ would cost $9$. At the optimum, the two marginal costs agree: ${\partial }_{x}f={\partial }_{y}f=4$. Moving a little input from one component to the other therefore has zero first-order effect on cost. When $c>0$, this solution also meets the extra nonnegativity optimization constraints $x,y\ge 0$, so it remains optimal with those added.

Here the Lagrange multiplier equations locate a candidate, and a short independent check certifies it. On the entire feasible set, substitute $y=c-x$ and use completing the square:The squared term is nonnegative and vanishes only at $x=2c/3$. Thus the candidate is the unique global minimum; there is no global maximum on this unbounded feasible set, a line. This separates finding a stationary point from proving optimality. The geometric beauty is that equal marginal costs, parallel gradients, tangency of level sets, and completing the square identify the same allocation.

A real-valued function $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$, with $D\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$, has a local maximum at $x_{\ast }$ if some $\delta >0$ satisfiesOnly a neighbourhood within the domain of a function is compared. Equality is allowed; a strict local maximum requires $f(x)<f(x_{\ast })$ for every other point in that neighbourhood. A constant function therefore has a local maximum and a local minimum at every input, with neither strict. This is a local form of an extremum of a real-valued function.

For $f(x)=x^4-2x^2$, zero is a strict local maximum because $f(x)=x^2(x^2-2)<0=f(0)$ when $0<|x|<\sqrt{2}$. It is not a global maximum: values far away grow without bound. This distinction makes a local maximum useful for describing a nearby peak without claiming that it is the highest value anywhere.

Negating the function exchanges local maxima and local minima, including their strict versions. At a smooth interior local maximum, the critical point argument forces zero gradient; for a function twice continuously differentiable nearby, its Hessian matrix is negative semidefinite. These necessary conditions alone do not establish a local maximum.

Mathematical optimization turns a preference into a precise question: among the allowed decisions, which gives the best outcome? A model separates the objective function, which measures quality, from the optimization constraints, which determine the feasible set. This language unifies finding a cheap plan for a transportation problem, efficient scheduling, or an accurate model in linear regression. The separation is useful because changing a preference and changing what is possible are different modeling decisions. See Boyd and Vandenberghe, introductory optimization models.

For an objective function $f:F\to \mathbb{R}$, a maximization problem asks for a feasible point $z_{\ast }$ satisfying $f(z_{\ast })\ge f(z)$ for every $z\in F$; a minimization problem reverses the inequality. This is a global extremum. A local maximum or local minimum compares only nearby feasible points, so finding one does not settle the global question.

Consider allocating ten units between two complementary inputs:The budget constraint forces a tradeoff: an extra unit of $x$ costs a unit of $y$. The best allocation is $(5,5)$, with objective function value $25$. Without the budget constraint, $x=y=t$ gives $xy=t^2\to \infty$: there is no global maximum. Constrained optimization can therefore have a finite answer even when the corresponding problem with fewer optimization constraints does not. Its beauty is that geometry, calculus, and an arithmetic-geometric mean inequality can certify the same answer.

For a real symmetric invertible matrix $H$, the full undamped Newton step for the displayed quadratic function sends every starting point to the unique stationary point:This follows because the gradient is affine and its first-order expansion is exact. If $H$ is a positive-definite matrix the result is the unique global minimum; a negative-definite matrix gives a global maximum, and an indefinite matrix $H$ gives a saddle point. Thus exact arrival does not by itself show that a minimization method has minimized anything. A line search, damping, or a positive-definite matrix replacing the Hessian matrix changes this exact one-step assertion.

The printed minimization of the evidence lower bound has no solution. To distinguish that literal result from the usual variational inference optimum, put $S={\sigma }_1^{-2}+{\sigma }_2^{-2}>0$. The preceding Kullback-Leibler divergence satisfiesIts unique global minimum occurs at ${\varphi }^2=2/S$. Since $\mathcal{L}=\log p(\mathcal{D})-\mathcal{J}$, this is the unique global maximum of the evidence lower bound:The optimal common variance is the harmonic mean of the two posterior variances. However, $\mathcal{J}(\varphi )\to +\infty$ as either $\varphi \downarrow 0$ or $\varphi \to \infty$. ThereforeThe source PDF confirms the minimization wording; replacing it by maximization would give the finite value above, consistently with part (i).

Set $\xi =x/t^{\beta }$ and $u=t^{\alpha }F(\xi )$. Balancing $u_t$, diffusion and the cubic gives $\alpha -1=\alpha -2\beta =3\alpha$, hence $\boxed{\alpha =-1/2,\beta =1/2}$. The drift term cancels the $-\beta \xi F^{\prime }$ contribution in $u_t$, leavingMultiply by $F^{\prime }$ and integrate. The limiting equilibrium has $F^{\prime }=0$, fixing the constant and giving $(F^{\prime }{)}^2=(1-F^2{)}^2/4$. The increasing branch from zero to one obeys $F^{\prime }=(1-F^2)/2$. ThereforeThe first integral also shows why another turning branch cannot reach the required limit from zero.

At a space-time interior maximum, $u_t=u_x=0$ and $u_{xx}\le 0$. The equation would then give $0=u_{xx}-u^3/2$, so $u\le 0$. Hence a positive interior maximum is impossible. In particular, a global maximum cannot be attained at an interior point, since the far-field boundary has positive values. If “maximum” instead means every local maximum of an arbitrary signed solution, the calculation only excludes positive local maxima; nonnegativity must be added for the broader usual interpretation. Positive boundary values alone do not impose nonnegativity on arbitrary initial data.

For uniqueness in the standard bounded classical solution class on finite time strips, set $\tau =\log t$, $\xi =x/\sqrt{t}$, and $v(\xi ,\tau )=\sqrt{t}u(x,t)$. The equation becomeswith $v(0,\tau )=0$, $v(\infty ,\tau )=1$ and prescribed $v(\xi ,0)=f(\xi )$. For two solutions let $w=v_1-v_2$. ThenThe bracket is at most $1/2$ since $a^2+ab+b^2\ge 0$. Thus $z=e^{-\tau /2}w$ solves $z_{\tau }=z_{\xi \xi }-Qz$ with $Q=(v_1^2+v_1{v}_2+v_2^2)/2\ge 0$, zero initial data and zero boundary difference.

For completeness on the unbounded interval, compare $\pm z$ with $\eta e^{3\tau }(1+{\xi }^2)$ on a large rectangle. This is a strict positive supersolution becauseFinite-strip boundedness lets its right boundary dominate $z$ when the rectangle is sufficiently wide. The weak parabolic maximum principle then bounds $|z|$ by this barrier. Send the width to infinity and then $\eta$ to zero. Hence $z=w=0$, giving $\boxed{\text{at most one bounded classical solution for }t>1}$. The boundedness or a suitable uniform far-field/growth condition is the usual hypothesis that makes this unbounded-domain argument valid; pointwise limits at spatial infinity should not silently replace it. This is similarity reduction for a cubic absorption equation with dilating drift.

For independent observations in a natural exponential family, the log likelihood isIn a minimal exponential family the observed Fisher information matrix is positive definite, so the log likelihood is strictly concave. Any finite solution of the likelihood equation $\nabla \kappa (\hat{\theta })=\bar{Y}$ is therefore the unique global maximum likelihood estimator. Existence is a separate issue: the observed sufficient-statistic mean must belong to the image of the mean parameter map $\nabla \kappa$.

For a full regular minimal natural exponential family this image is the interior of the convex support of an exponential family, $C=\overline{\mathrm{conv}(\mathrm{supp}(h\nu ))}$. The necessity follows from a supporting hyperplane argument. If a finite parameter had its mean on a boundary face, some nonzero $v$ would satisfy $v^{T}Y\le b$ almost surely and $\mathbb{E}(v^{T}Y)=b$. Equality of the expectation forces $v^{T}Y=b$ almost surely. Exponential tilting preserves the base-measure null sets, so this contradicts minimality.

For sufficiency, let $\bar{Y}$ be an interior point of $C$. Choose finitely many points $y_1,\dots ,y_m$ of the support whose convex hull contains a ball about $\bar{Y}$, say of radius $2\epsilon$. Such points exist because $\bar{Y}$ is interior to the closed convex hull; one may approximate the vertices of a small simplex surrounding it by finite convex combinations of support points. Take support neighbourhoods of radius at most $\epsilon$ with positive finite base-measure masses $a_j$. These masses can be taken finite by restricting to bounded neighbourhoods and using finiteness of the normalizing integral at any fixed interior parameter. For every vector $\theta$, at least one $j$ has ${\theta }^T(y_j-\bar{Y})\ge 2\epsilon \Vert \theta \Vert$. Integrating over that neighbourhood yieldsThus the negative log likelihood grows to infinity as $\Vert \theta \Vert \to \infty$. At a finite boundary point of the full open natural parameter space, the normalizing integral is infinite, since otherwise that point would itself belong to the full domain. Fatou's lemma makes $\kappa (\theta )$ diverge on approach to such a boundary. A minimizing sequence for $\kappa (\theta )-{\theta }^T\bar{Y}$ therefore stays in a bounded subset away from the boundary; it has an interior limit where the minimum is attained. Its gradient vanishes, giving the required likelihood equation. Strict convexity gives uniqueness.

Hence, under these full, regular and minimal conventions,This is maximum likelihood existence in a full regular natural exponential family. Regularity alone does not make every sample admissible: in a Bernoulli distribution an all-zero or all-one sample has its sample mean on the boundary of $C=[0,1]$, and the canonical maximum is approached only as $\theta \to -\infty$ or $+\infty$. The usual probability parameter then has a boundary maximum in an enlarged model, but no finite canonical maximizer. A regular restriction of the natural parameter space requires membership in its actual mean-map image, rather than merely in $\mathrm{int}C$. Without minimality, affine redundancies may prevent uniqueness of the canonical parameter even when the fitted probability distribution is unique.

Independence and the Poisson probabilities give the log-likelihoodIts score and curvature areIf some $x_i\ne 0$, this is strictly concave. A finite maximum is therefore the unique zero of the score when such a zero exists. Newton iteration givesStart from a finite value, compute the score and curvature, and iterate until both the score and step are small. A line search that shortens a step until the likelihood increases improves robustness. Strict concavity identifies any converged stationary point as the global maximum. A finite root need not exist, for example when all observations are zero and all $x_i>0$, in which case the likelihood supremum is at $\beta \to -\infty$. If all $x_i=0$, the parameter is unidentifiable.

The Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem states that every bounded sequence of real numbers has a convergent subsequence. We first use it to show that a continuous function on $[a,b]$ is bounded above. Otherwise, choose $x_n\in [a,b]$ with $f(x_n)>n$. A convergent subsequence $x_{n_k}\to c$ exists, with $c\in [a,b]$ because the interval is closed. Continuity would give $f(x_{n_k})\to f(c)$, contradicting $f(x_{n_k})>n_k\to \infty$.

Let $L=\sup \{f(x):x\in [a,b]\}$, which is finite. By the definition of supremum, there are $y_n\in [a,b]$ with $L-1/n<f(y_n)\le L$. Another application of the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem gives a subsequence $y_{n_k}\to c\in [a,b]$. By continuity,Thus the supremum is actually attained:This proves the maximum part of the extreme value theorem from sequential compactness rather than assuming it.

Now suppose $f^{\prime \prime }<0$ on $\mathbb{R}$. Applying the mean value theorem to $f^{\prime }$ shows that $f^{\prime }$ is strictly decreasing. At a local maximum of a differentiable function, the left difference quotients are nonnegative and the right difference quotients are nonpositive; existence of the derivative forces $f^{\prime }=0$. A strictly decreasing function has at most one zero. ThereforeIf that zero exists, $f^{\prime }$ is positive to its left and negative to its right, so the local maximum is also a global maximum.

For the uniform bound by $K<0$, defineIts derivative is $h^{\prime }(x)=f^{\prime \prime }(x)-K<0$, so $h$ is strictly decreasing by the mean value theorem. Comparing with $h(0)=f^{\prime }(0)$ givesBecause $K<0$, this makes $f^{\prime }$ negative at sufficiently large positive $x$ and positive at sufficiently large negative $x$. The function $f^{\prime }$ is continuous, since it is differentiable; the intermediate value theorem supplies a zero $c$ between such points. Its strict decrease makes this zero unique. Again using the mean value theorem for $f$, the derivative signs imply that $f$ increases up to $c$ and decreases after $c$:This illustrates uniform negative curvature and global maximization.

Merely requiring $f^{\prime \prime }<0$ does not force existence. TakeThen $f^{\prime }(x)=e^{-x}>0$ and $f^{\prime \prime }(x)=-e^{-x}<0$, but $f$ is strictly increasing, approaches $0$ as $x\to +\infty$, and never equals $0$. The answer to the final question is no, even for a function bounded above:The stronger uniform curvature assumption prevents this behaviour. Here $f^{\prime \prime }(x)\to 0$ at the end where the supremum is approached, so no uniform negative bound of that kind is available.

The obstacle and wave pattern are stationary, so $\omega =\Omega =0$. Withthe dispersion relation becomesHence $\cos \varphi >0$, so $-\pi /2<\varphi <\pi /2$, and

Differentiating the dispersion relation with respect to the wavevector giveswhere the zero-frequency relation
$\alpha /\sqrt{\kappa }=V\cos \varphi$ was used. Its first component is always negative, so the ray angle $\psi$ lies inMoreover,

Put $q=|\tan \varphi |$. The magnitude of the slope relative to the negative $x_1$-axis isIts derivative isso its global maximum occurs at $q=1/\sqrt{2}$ and equalsTherefore all group-velocity rays lie in the stationary square-root-dispersion wakea wedge of semi-angle ${\tan }^{-1}(2^{-3/2})$ extending in the negative $x_1$-direction.

Use $x>0$ as the parameter of the smooth curve:Its velocity vector and speed areThe unit tangent vector is therefore

The parameter-independent formula for the curvature of a space curve givesDifferentiating,Hence $\kappa$ increases for $0<x<1/\sqrt{2}$ and decreases for $x>1/\sqrt{2}$. Its global maximum occurs at $x=1/\sqrt{2}$ and equalsThe corresponding point is