A Kinder, Gentler, Longer L'Hospital Proof

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rudinreader
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various proofs of L'Hospital's Rule, focusing on different cases and approaches to understanding the theorem. Participants explore specific scenarios where the rule applies, including limits approaching zero and infinity, and provide detailed proofs for each case. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of the proofs and the nuances involved in different situations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that L'Hospital's Rule is a compact theorem summarizing various situations, making its proof challenging to remember.
  • One participant presents multiple cases (mini#1 to mini#12) for proving L'Hospital's Rule, detailing the conditions and assumptions for each case.
  • Another participant suggests that the proofs can be simplified by merging left-hand and right-hand limits into a two-sided limit approach.
  • Some participants propose that the proofs provided are more straightforward compared to those in standard texts like Baby Rudin, which may use more complex ideas.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of different approaches and whether they can be generalized or require specific conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the complexity and clarity of the proofs of L'Hospital's Rule. While some agree on the validity of the presented cases, there is no consensus on the best approach or the necessity of certain conditions, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific assumptions about the functions involved, such as differentiability and behavior near certain points. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical intricacies or the completeness of the proofs presented.

rudinreader
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
I have found the easiest way to understand the proof is to give attention to a lot of particular cases. So in that since, L'Hospital's rule is a compact theorem statement summarizing a handful of situations. That can make it's proof (which part?) hard to remember. Baby Rudin makes it hard to see even the easiest case (below). The "proof" on wiki is just a couple of lines, and isn't really complete. Perhaps this can be posted there... hmm... anyways...

Theorem: L'Hospital's Rule
To see the theorem statement, go to wiki, "Formal Statement": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'H%C3%B4pital's_rule.

proof(s) (of each situation):

With the statement "as x -> c", in each case, assume g(x), g'(x) are "nonzero near c", as discussed on the wiki page. f,g are assumed differentiable besides at c.

The easiest case first.
mini#1: If f(x),g(x) -> 0 as x -> c+ \in \mathbb{R}, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L (possibly infinite) as x -> c+, then f(x)/g(x) -> L.
proof:
Assume f,g are continuous at c (or redefine them as f(c) = 0, etc). If x > c, then by the CMVT, there exists E_x in (c,x) such that f(x)g'(E_x) = g(x)f'(E_x), so that as x -> c+, f(x)/g(x) = f'(E_x)/g'(E_x) -> L.


The easiest case modified.
mini#2: If f(x),g(x) -> 0 as x -> +\infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L as x -> \infty, then f(x)/g(x) -> L.
proof:
Since g \neq 0, for each x we can choose M_x > x large enough such that (f(x)-f(M_x))/(g(x)-g(M_x)) is as close as we want to f(x)/g(x), say within e_x = 1/x > 0. Then we can choose E_x in (x,M_x) such that (f(E_x)-f(x))g'(E_x) = (g(M_x)-g(x))f'(E_x), so that |f(x)/g(x) - f'(E_x)/g'(E_x)| < e_x, so when x -> \infty, e_x -> 0, and f(x)/g(x) -> L.


Tricky case.
mini#3: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L \in \mathbb{R} as x -> \infty, then f/g -> L.
proof:

Verify the equality f(x)/g(x) = f(y)/g(x) + (1-g(y)/g(x))*(f(x)-f(y))/(g(x)-g(y)).

Fix e > 0. Fix M > 0 such that x >= M implies |f'(x)/g'(x)-L| < e. Since f(M), g(M) are fixed, we can choose M1 > M such that x >= M1 implies |f(M)/g(x)|,|g(M)/g(x)| < e.

With this set up apply the CMVT, for any x > M, choose Cx in (M,x) such that f'(Cx)/g'(Cx) = (f(x)-f(M))/(g(x)-g(M)).

Then for all x >= M1,
|f(x)/g(x) - L|
= |f(M)/g(x) + (1-g(M)/g(x))*f'(Cx)/g'(Cx) - L|
<= |f(M)/g(x)| + |f'(Cx)/g'(Cx) - L| + |g(M)/g(x)*f'(Cx)/g'(Cx)|
< e + e + |g(M)/g(x)|*(|L| + e)
< 2e + e(|L| + e) = e(|L| + 2) + e^2.

It follows that f(x)/g(x) -> L.


Another trick for L = \infty
mini#4: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> \infty as x -> \infty then f/g -> \infty.
proof:
Fix N > 0. Choose M large enough so that f'(x)/g'(x) > N + 1 for x > M. Then for x > M choose E_x such that (g(x)-g(M))f'(E_x) = (f(x)-f(M))g'(E_x). Then as x gets large, f(x)/g(x) ≈ (f(x)-f(M))/(g(x)-g(M)) = f(E_x)/g(E_x) > N. Since N was arbitrary, we conclude f/g -> \infty.


***Extra justification for the statement (for beginners..): "as x gets large, f(x)/g(x) ≈ (f(x)-f(M))/(g(x)-g(M))".
Fix e > 0. Since f,g -> infinity, choose e*f(x), e*g(x) larger than f(M), g(M), then ..
(1+e)f(x) > f(x) - f(M) > (1-e)f(x), etc., so (f(x)/g(x))*((1-e)/(1+e)) < f(x)-f((M_x))/(g(x)-g(M_x)) < (f(x)/g(x))*((1+e)/(1-e)) -> f(x)/g(x) as e -> 0.



Other cases

mini#5: If f(x),g(x) -> 0 as x -> c- \in \mathbb{R}, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L (possibly infinite) as x -> c+, then f(x)/g(x) -> L.
proof: This is the left hand limit of mini#1, the same argument applies (only it's on the left hand side).

mini#6: If f(x),g(x) -> 0 as x -> -\infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L as x -> \infty, then f(x)/g(x) -> L.
proof: Again the left hand version of mini#2.

mini#7: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L \in \mathbb{R} as x -> -\infty, then f/g -> L.
proof: Left hand limit of mini#3.

mini#8: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> \infty as x -> -\infty then f/g -> \infty.
proof: Left hand limit of mini#4.

mini#9: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> -\infty as x -> +/-\infty then f/g -> \infty.
proof: Left/Right hand limits of mini#4 except f'/g' -> -\infty this time. The same argument in #4 applies except you fix N < 0, and show f(x)/g(x) < N for large (or large negative) x.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I missed some... Any other omissions/mistakes, please point i out or post corrections..

The tricky case (#3) with c real
mini#10: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L \in \mathbb{R} as x -> c+ \in \mathbb{R}, then f/g -> L.
proof:
(This is also just a direct switch of c < x <= M instead of x >= M in #3.)

Verify the equality f(x)/g(x) = f(y)/g(x) + (1-g(y)/g(x))*(f(x)-f(y))/(g(x)-g(y)).

Fix e > 0. Fix M > c such that c < x <= M implies |f'(x)/g'(x)-L| < e. Since f(M), g(M) are fixed, we can choose M1 < M such that c < x <= M1 implies |f(M)/g(x)|,|g(M)/g(x)| < e.

With this set up apply the CMVT, for c < x < M, choose Cx in (x,M) such that f'(Cx)/g'(Cx) = (f(x)-f(M))/(g(x)-g(M)).

Then whenever c < x <= M1,
|f(x)/g(x) - L|
= |f(M)/g(x) + (1-g(M)/g(x))*f'(Cx)/g'(Cx) - L|
<= |f(M)/g(x)| + |f'(Cx)/g'(Cx) - L| + |g(M)/g(x)*f'(Cx)/g'(Cx)|
< e + e + |g(M)/g(x)|*(|L| + e)
< 2e + e(|L| + e) = e(|L| + 2) + e^2.

It follows that f(x)/g(x) -> L.

mini#11: The c- left hand limit as in #10 is done in the same way from the left side.

mini#12: mini#4 when x -> c+ \in \mathbb{R}.
proof:
Fix N > 0. Choose M > c close enough to c so that f'(x)/g'(x) > N + 1 when c < x < M. Then for c < x < M choose E_x in (x,M) such that (g(x)-g(M))f'(E_x) = (f(x)-f(M))g'(E_x). Then as x -> c+, f(x)/g(x) ≈ (f(x)-f(M))/(g(x)-g(M)) = f(E_x)/g(E_x) > N. Since N was arbitrary, we conclude f/g -> \infty.

mini#13: mini#12 when x -> c-. Same, just approach c from the left.
 
One point is that the cases x -> c+ and x -> c- can be merged together and proved as a two sided limit.. In these cases, as I wrote it above I only wrote out the proof for one side.

As long as I got them all up there, there are 4 distinct approaches (mini#1,#2,#3,#4), and the other cases are all done from the same idea as long as you can make the switch between c < x <= M instead of x >= M, and left/right hand limit etc.

I get the impression that the proof in baby Rudin is meant to proof LHospital via only two cases, except the idea involved is more difficult, whereas the proofs I gave above are all very straightforward. I felt that using a "difficult idea" to simplify it to two cases (instead of just one) is not worth the price in comparison to 4 easy ideas for 4 cases.
 
Last edited:
I should finish off by organizing around the ideas, a 4 part L'Hospital.

Let R* be the real numbers with -\infty,+\infty added. Assume f,g are differentiable except at c, and g,g' are "nonzero near c".

Thm 1,2: 0/0 cases

Thm 1: If f,g -> 0 as x -> c in R, and f'/g' -> L in R*, then f/g -> L.
proof: as in mini#1. The CMVT(Cauchy mean value theorem) gives f(x)/g(x) = f'(E_x)/g'(E_x), where E_x is squeezed between x and c.

Thm 2: If f,g -> 0, and f'/g' -> L in R* as x -> +/-\infty, then f/g -> L.
proof: as in mini#2. Choose M so that f'(x)/g'(x) is "near L" when x is between M and c. For each x choose M_x between x and c so that f(x)/g(x) ≈ (f(x)-f(M_x))/(g(x)-g(M_x)). The CMVT gives f(x)/g(x) ≈ f'(E_x)/g'(E_x) where E_x is squeezed between x and c.


Thm 3,4: infinity/infinity cases

Thm 3: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> L in R as x -> c in R*, then f/g -> L.
proof: as in mini#3. Use the algebraic identity so you can damp unwanted terms as g(x) -> infinity. Choose M "close" to c so that f'(M)/g'(M) ≈ L. Then choose M1 "closer" to c (than M) so that g(x) damps unwanted terms when x is between M1 and c. Apply CMVT with M, but with algebra we get f(x)/g(x) ≈ L when x is between M1 and c (because the unwanted terms are "damped by g(x)" there).

Thm 4: If f,g -> \infty, and f'(x)/g'(x) -> \infty as x -> c in R*, then f/g -> \infty.
proof: as in mini#4. Fix N > 0. Choose M "close enough to c" so that f'(x)/g'(x) > N when x is between M and c. Then as x -> c+, f(x)/g(x) ≈ (f(x)-f(M))/(g(x)-g(M)), so apply the CMVT and get f(x)/g(x) ≈ f'(E_x)/g'(E_x) where E_x is squeezed between x and c.

OK That's enough!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K