At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Because otherwise, it wouldn't be a function? |dw:1328463326481:dw|
yup i concur with hero
Without a relative min, if you wanted to create a function between two points, it would essentially be a line. A line doesn't have a relative min/max.
Thank you! I can't think of another counterexample. Is a line a counterexample, though?
well as a matter of fact it would be..as it would not be havin rel. maximas/minimas
What I don't understand is this: How can a line disprove the statement if that line does not have the two maxima in the first place?
According to my class, it must have minimum. That was the correct answer. Thank you both very much.
all the credit goes to hero...
The line is there to show you that if you drew the line to create a function, you would have a function, but you wouldn't have a minimum, maximum or any of the such.