l'Hospital proof problem


by pk1234
Tags: lhospital, proof
pk1234
pk1234 is offline
#1
Nov9-12, 08:01 AM
P: 11
Hey guys, first year university math student here. I need some help explaining the proof used in the scripts I'm studying from - just part of the proof to be more precise. English isn't my first language and I don't have much experience writing/rewriting down proofs and I don't know how to write those nice latex symbols, so sorry in advance if something doesn't make sense:


Presuming:
(1), a is element of R (|a| =/= +oo)
(2), f and g are real functions
(3), limit x->a_+ (f'(x) / g'(x)) exists (must be element of R, or +-oo)
(4), limit x->a_+ (f(x)) = limit x->a_+ (g(x)) = 0

then

limit x->a_+ (f(x))/(g(x)) = limit x->a_+ (f'(x))/(g'(x))




I think I understand most of the proof but there's something right at the start that I'm completely stuck at and still don't understand precisely enough:

Let L=limit x->a_+ (f'(x) / g'(x)).

There exists delta>0, such that for all x element of (a,a+delta), f and g are both defined on this interval,


- I think this can be proved easily from (4), correct? Also, |f| and |g| are both smaller than some Epsilon>0. The following however, I don't understand at all:

and both f' and g' have a finite (not = oo or -oo) derivation on this interval, and also g'=/=0.

Why is the derivation necessarily finite?


EDIT:

To explain where I see the problem a bit more precisely, let's say:

L=0
f(x)=0 for all x element R, and therefore f'(x)=0 for all x element R

Now, from limit x->a_+ (f'(x) / g'(x)) = 0 , it should be possible to somehow prove, that there exists a delta>0, such that for all x element (a,a+delta), g'(x) is finite and non zero. I really don't see it though, why can g'(x) not be +oo somewhere in that interval?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Stephen Tashi
Stephen Tashi is offline
#2
Nov9-12, 07:19 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,175
Quote Quote by pk1234 View Post
Now, from limit x->a_+ (f'(x) / g'(x)) = 0 , it should be possible to somehow prove, that there exists a delta>0, such that for all x element (a,a+delta), g'(x) is finite and non zero. I really don't see it though, why can g'(x) not be +oo somewhere in that interval?
Pick [itex] \epsilon = 0.5 [/itex] Since the above limit exists, there exists a [itex] \delta > 0 [/itex] such that [itex] a < x < a + \delta [/itex] implies [itex] | \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x) } - 0 | < 0.5 [/itex]

The statement [itex] | \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}| < 0.5 [/itex] is not true unless the fraction [itex] \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)} [/itex] exists, i.e. is a specific number with an absolute value than can be compared to 0.5. When [itex] g'(x) [/itex] is 0, the fraction doesn't exist. When [itex] g'(x) [/itex] doesn't exist by virtue of being "equal" to [itex] \infty [/itex] the fraction doesn't exist.
pk1234
pk1234 is offline
#3
Nov10-12, 03:22 AM
P: 11
Quote Quote by Stephen Tashi View Post
Pick [itex] \epsilon = 0.5 [/itex] Since the above limit exists, there exists a [itex] \delta > 0 [/itex] such that [itex] a < x < a + \delta [/itex] implies [itex] | \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x) } - 0 | < 0.5 [/itex]

The statement [itex] | \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}| < 0.5 [/itex] is not true unless the fraction [itex] \frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)} [/itex] exists, i.e. is a specific number with an absolute value than can be compared to 0.5. When [itex] g'(x) [/itex] is 0, the fraction doesn't exist. When [itex] g'(x) [/itex] doesn't exist by virtue of being "equal" to [itex] \infty [/itex] the fraction doesn't exist.
Thanks I think I'm starting to see where the problem is -

When [itex] g'(x) [/itex] doesn't exist by virtue of being "equal" to [itex] \infty [/itex] the fraction doesn't exist.

Why does it not exist, if it's equal to +oo?

Stephen Tashi
Stephen Tashi is offline
#4
Nov10-12, 09:07 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,175

l'Hospital proof problem


Real valued functions exist at those real numbers where their values are real numbers. [itex] \infty [/itex] is not a real number.
pk1234
pk1234 is offline
#5
Nov10-12, 10:42 AM
P: 11
Quote Quote by Stephen Tashi View Post
Real valued functions exist at those real numbers where their values are real numbers. [itex] \infty [/itex] is not a real number.
Why does g'(x) have to be a real valued function?
Stephen Tashi
Stephen Tashi is offline
#6
Nov10-12, 02:00 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,175
The fraction [itex] | f'(x)/g'(x)| [/itex] isn't comparable to the real number [itex] \delta [/itex] by the relation "<" unless the fraction is a real number. The fraction isn't a real number unless it is the ratio of real numbers.
pk1234
pk1234 is offline
#7
Nov10-12, 08:21 PM
P: 11
Oooh. I thought that 0/oo = 0, and instead it is undefined?
Stephen Tashi
Stephen Tashi is offline
#8
Nov10-12, 08:54 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,175
Quote Quote by pk1234 View Post
Oooh. I thought that 0/oo = 0, and instead it is undefined?
Yes, it's undefined. Don't confuse a ratio of numbers with limit of ratios.
pk1234
pk1234 is offline
#9
Nov11-12, 04:52 AM
P: 11
Thank you very much!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Question with Spivak's proof of L'Hospital's Rule Calculus & Beyond Homework 10
L'hospital's Rule Problem Introductory Physics Homework 1
proof of L'Hospital's Rule Calculus 2
A Kinder, Gentler, Longer L'Hospital Proof Calculus 3
L'Hospital's Rule problem Calculus & Beyond Homework 8