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.
I am thinking it would be "necessarily concave"... what do you think? I am still considering what impact comes from the fact that it says the functions f and g are not necessarily differentiable.
that wer my doubt area is.. cz wen u jst use the fact that f n g are concave u can show h is concave but wat difference does differentiability makes here
yes... interesting. What would make f not differentiable but still allow it to be considered concave? There is the "easy" definition of concave as U shaped (bowl, open side up). But the definition based on derivatives depends, I would have thought, on the function being differentiable. Maybe you can imagine a non-differentiable function that still faces upward.... if you can imagine one, then a second similar upward facing function probably (but I hate guessing!!) can just be added to the first one without affecting concavity.
certainly if you had f(x) = x^2 and g(x) = 2x^2, adding them to get h(x) = 3x^2 is still concave. (wait, am I totally backwards on concave? an upward parabola is concave up, right? Not convex? It's been awhile since I've done this sort of problem).
ya upward parabola is concave up
concave fns hav minima ie second differenciation is >0
so, f(x) = x^2 is concave up, but it doesn't demonstrate non-differentiability. But I brought it up as a simpler example... adding 2 concave-up parabolas results in a 3rd up-facing parabola
v need to prove tis ... how shud i go abt it
so, leaving aside the non-differentiable part for a sec, I'm pretty certain you could prove analytically that for any f(x) and g(x) that are concave up, h(x) is also concave up.
do you actually have to prove this? Or just answer? Also, help me on this non-differentiable idea... what makes something non-differentiable? Is it that a derivative is undefined, like a section of vertical slope?
Do you think the made-up function in that diagram is considered concave but not differentiable because of the vertical slope piece in the middle? I don't really know...
I just looked it up... it doesn't have to be this hard :)
a fn is not differential at "kink" ie corners so it shudnt be diff
|dw:1348930186324:dw| it wont be diff der
an absolute value function is non-differentiable... f(x) = |x| is concave up... g(x) = |x + 2| is also... is f(x) + g(x) is concave?
k tis makes sense:)
Maybe... it's making my head hurt! with that absolute value example, does that h(x) qualify as concave up? It doesn't have a single minimum point, but the line across the bottom is a minimum area over that range, and the whole function does face up... just not sure about the definition of concave in a situation like this.
see a/c to the dat i hav they hav jst used tha fact dat f n g r concave all i want to knw is wat does tis phrase means " Neither fn is necessarily differentiable
I think it just means that you cannot rely on differentiating the functions as a way of showing that h(x) is concave. You have to be able to realize what adding concave functions does WITHOUT trying to find the derivative of h(x) to answer about its concavity.