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.
"If the domain of ƒ is the closed interval [a, b], then ƒ has a local maximum at the endpoint \[x=a\] if \[f(x) \le f(a)\] for all x in some half-open interval Likewise, f has a local maximum at an interior point \[x = c\] if \[f(x) \le f(c)\]for all x in some open interval \[(c -\delta, c+\delta), \delta > 0\] and a local maximum at the endpoint \[x = b\]if \[f(x) \le f(b)\]for all x in some half-open interval \[(b -\delta,b],\delta > 0.\] The inequalities are reversed for local minimum values. In Figure 4.5, the function ƒ has local maxima at c and d and local minima at a, e, and b. Local extrema are also called relative extrema. Some functions can have infinitely many local extrema, even over a finite interval." I get why [a, b] has to be a closed interval, but I don't understand what the consequences would be for the above statements regarding local extrema if they had closed intervals. i.e., why are some of them half-open? I don't understand how them being closed would be an issue or challenge the logic of the statements.
Whoops, missed a portion. Right after "in some half-open interval" for an endpoint maxima for a:\[[a, a+\delta), \delta > 0\]
Is it just because delta can't be actually quantified/defined and is essentially an arbitrary number, while [a,b] are definite fixed end points? So basically the open-ended statement is just a reinforcement that the half-open interval can be anything?
Having the point in question is necessary. In order to have a, for example, in the interval you construct it needs to be closed on one side at least since it it at the end of your [a,b]. For c to be within, since it is in (a,b) it is possible to have an open interval around in on both sides. Why intervals are kept open when involving the delta I'm not exactly sure
it might have to do with the infinitesimal property of the a+g, you would not use a closed interval to express infinity, so it might be improper to use it on an infinitesimal as well