Given a differentiable function $f\colon \mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ which we must prove to be injective, does it suffice to show $f'(x)≠0$ for all $x$ (for which the function is defined)? It makes sense, of course, due to the mean value theorem, but maybe there's some subtleties I am missing since this method doesn't seem to be used very often.
-
1Isn't x**3 is injective but f'(0) = 0. – user247608 Jul 06 '15 at 04:08
-
5@david He asked about sufficiency, not necessity. – Eric Auld Jul 06 '15 at 04:18
-
@user247608 $f'(x) \neq 0 \to f$ injective is different of $f$ injective $\to f'(x) \neq 0$ – ESCM Jul 12 '20 at 21:41
6 Answers
Yes, this suffices.
To see this suppose $f$ is differntiable on the domain of consideration but not injective. Then $f(a)=f(b)$ for some $a,b$ with $a\neq b$ and by the mean value theorem the derivative has a zero between $a$ and $b$.
Most of the time a function is not describable by a differentiable function so this method is used less often then by directly showing the claim. In algebra and general set theory for example this method is basically never applicable.

- 5,809
Yes, it is sufficient to show that $f'(x) \neq 0$ for all $x$.
One way to show the sufficiency is using Darboux's theorem. From this theorem, it follows that if we have $a,b$ such that $f'(a) > 0$ and $f'(b) < 0$, then there is a $c$ such that $f'(c) = 0$.
Thus, if we have $f'(x) \neq 0$ for all $x$, we may conclude that either $f'(x) \geq 0$ or $f'(x) \leq 0$ for all $x$. Thus, $f'(x) > 0$ for all $x$, or $f'(x) < 0$ for all $x$, since we never have $f'(x) = 0$. The conclusion follows.

- 225,327
-
I don't see how "the conclusion follows", except perhaps by applying the Mean Value Theorem. But if you're going to apply the Mean Value Theorem anyway, there's no reason to prove that either $f'(x)>0$ for all $x$ or $f'(x)<0$ for all $x$. Just take, by way of contradiction, $a<b$ so $f(a)=f(b)$ and apply the Mean Value Theorem to the interval $[a, b]$. – Marcel Besixdouze Jul 08 '16 at 04:40
-
@Marcel there is already another answer to that effect. I had just posted the first thing I thought of at the time. I assume that what the asker likes about my answer is that "positive derivative means strictly increasing" and "negative derivative means strictly decreasing" are already intuitive notions, even if they require the same proof on some level. Note also that Darboux's theorem comes from the mean value theorem, so the answer is the mean value theorem no matter how you shake it. – Ben Grossmann Jul 08 '16 at 11:18
There's a little bit of subtlety. The mean value property will work if you can conclude that $f'$ is either always positive or always negative. But how do you conclude this from $f' \neq 0$?
If the derivative is assumed continuous, that will suffice, because if you know that $f'$ is positive at some point, and never zero, then it must remain positive, by the intermediate value theorem applied to $f'$.
But even if you don't assume $f'$ is continuous, you can still conclude $f'$ remains strictly positive or strictly negative, because a derivative always has the intermediate value property, namely:
If $f'(x) = a$ and $f'(y) = b$, and $a<c<b$, then there is some point between $x$ and $y$ where $f'(x)=c$.
That is true even if $f'$ is not continuous. To see how one can hold but not the other, consider the function $$x \mapsto \begin{cases} \sin (1/x) & \text{if } x \neq 0 \\ 0 & \text{if } x =0, \end{cases}$$ which has the intermediate value property but is not continuous at zero*. This allows you to conclude that if $f'$ is never zero, it must remain strictly positive or strictly negative.
*And in fact it is the derivative of a function, namely $x^2 \cos(1/x) - 2 \int_0^x \xi \cos(1/\xi) \, d\xi$.
-
What statement of the MVT are you using? If there exist $a<b$ so that $f(a)=f(b)$ then the MVT immediately gives you a point where $f'(x)=0$. There is no need at all to first prove Darboux's theorem. – Marcel Besixdouze Jul 08 '16 at 04:44
This is an interesting question, and I have a few thoughts. You are right that $f'(x)\neq 0$ implies $f$ is injective. Here are some reasons I think it may not usually be used:
- Injective functions designed to be easily used for set theory problems may not be differentiable.
- As far as the use of injective functions, functions $\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ are used less than functions between more complicated spaces, where the mean value theorem doesn't apply.
- In introductory courses when injectivity is first described, differentiation has not yet been rigorously introduced.
- This condition is not necessary for injectivity.

- 22,730
- 3
- 41
- 71
Yes. This is simply the inverse function theorem. If $f$ is continuously differentiable with nonzero derivative at some point $a$, then $f$ is invertible in a neighborhood of $a$.

- 496
Rolle's theorem state that if $f$ is differentiable and continuous on $[a, b]$, with $a \neq b$, you have:
$f(a) = f(b) \implies \exists c\in (a,b): f'(c) = 0$
Using the contrapositive:
$\forall c \in (a,b): \neg \left[f'(c) =0\right] \implies f(a) \neq f(b)$
And starting from $a \neq b$ you got $f(a) \neq f(b)$ that is just the desired result.
Also, this implies that $f$ will be stricty monotonous function(using fermat's theorem).
In the trivial case $a = b$ is the same point, so there is nothing to do.

- 3,161