L'Hopital's rule proof questions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mrbean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    L'hopital's rule Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of L'Hopital's rule as presented in Spivak's textbook, focusing on the application of Cauchy's mean value theorem and the implications of the variable c that is indexed to x. Participants explore the conditions under which c can be considered a function of x and the limits associated with it.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether c, as defined in the proof, can be treated as a function of x, given that multiple values of c may exist between a and x.
  • Others argue that it is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of at least one c, as guaranteed by the mean value theorem, without needing to establish it as a function.
  • There is a discussion about the limit of c as x approaches a, with some participants suggesting that all values of c must converge to a as x approaches a.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about why proving the existence of one c is adequate, indicating a need for further clarification on the implications of this existence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for c to exist but disagree on whether c should be treated as a function of x and the implications of this for the proof. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the formalization of c as a function.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity surrounding the uniqueness of c and the implications of its existence on the proof's validity. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the definitions and conditions set forth in the proof.

mrbean
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I've a question concerning spivak's proof of L'Hopital's rule (in chapter 11).

It goes like this,

lim (x tends to a) of f = 0
lim (x tends to a) of g = 0
lim (x tends to a) of f'/g' exists,

then,

lim (x tends to a) f/g exists and is equal to lim (x tends to a) of f'/g'

He clarifies some thing that are implicit in the hypothesis, shows that g(x) is not equal to zero in some interval containing a, and then,

He applies Cauchy's mean value theorem to say there exists a certain number c (which is indexed to x) in (a ; x) such that f(x)g'(c) = g(x)f'(c). Then he says that as x tends to a,
c tends to a. And after some other step, he finishes.

The whole idea of the proof is clear, but:

My questions here are:

1. As c is indexed to x, is c a function of x? If so, can you give a proof of this? ( My problem here is that when I define the function c over a certain interval containing a, such that c(x) satisfies,
f(x)g'(c(x)) = g(x)f'(c(x)), Cauchy's mean value theorem assures existence of at least one c(x), but what if there are more? Then c wouldn't be a function, wouldn't it? How do you fix this? I know this is obvious, and that you can fix it, but I can't see how to formalize it.

2. Can we then say then that lim (as x tends to a) of c = a ? ( If the above question is answered, this is easy, but otherwise I don't see how to prove it)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, correct me if I am mistaken, but it's just needed to prove that such a function c exists, and no more. And the mean value theorem does that, right?
 
mrbean said:
I've a question concerning spivak's proof of L'Hopital's rule (in chapter 11).

It goes like this,

lim (x tends to a) of f = 0
lim (x tends to a) of g = 0
lim (x tends to a) of f'/g' exists,

then,

lim (x tends to a) f/g exists and is equal to lim (x tends to a) of f'/g'
I feel sure Spivak says nothing of the sort! What is true is that
\lim_{x\rightarrow a} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}= \frac{\lim_{x\rightarrow a} f'(x)}{\lim_{x\rightarrow a} g'(x)}

He clarifies some thing that are implicit in the hypothesis, shows that g(x) is not equal to zero in some interval containing a, and then,

He applies Cauchy's mean value theorem to say there exists a certain number c (which is indexed to x) in (a ; x) such that f(x)g'(c) = g(x)f'(c). Then he says that as x tends to a,
c tends to a. And after some other step, he finishes.

The whole idea of the proof is clear, but:

My questions here are:

1. As c is indexed to x, is c a function of x? If so, can you give a proof of this? ( My problem here is that when I define the function c over a certain interval containing a, such that c(x) satisfies,
f(x)g'(c(x)) = g(x)f'(c(x)), Cauchy's mean value theorem assures existence of at least one c(x), but what if there are more? Then c wouldn't be a function, wouldn't it? How do you fix this? I know this is obvious, and that you can fix it, but I can't see how to formalize it.
c is not necessarily a function of x for the reasons you mention- however, all values of c, if there are more than one, must lie between x and a, for all x, and so as x goes to a, all such values of c must also go to a.

2. Can we then say then that lim (as x tends to a) of c = a ? ( If the above question is answered, this is easy, but otherwise I don't see how to prove it)
For all x> a, a\le c\le x. Given any \epsilon> 0 there exist \delta> 0 such that if |x-a|< \delta, |c- a|< |x-a|< \epsilon.

A similar proof works for x< a.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrbean said:
Well, correct me if I am mistaken, but it's just needed to prove that such a function c exists, and no more. And the mean value theorem does that, right?

Hi I am currently struggeling with the proof of L'hopital anf yhis is one of two concerns for me. Why do we only need to proof that there exists one such formula? I just keep beleving that this only shows something about that function not sure what.

Here is the formula F they use in my book:

http://bildr.no/view/953799

the rest of the proof is here if someone should need it:
http://bildr.no/view/953800

http://bildr.no/view/999144
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K