Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anyone can figur this out ?

  1. Dec 11, 2007 #1
    hi,

    this question is so hard that i do not know it's head from it's tail.
    here this the question:
    let f be a funcation defined on [o,infinity),with the properties: f is continuous on [o,infinity),f(0)=0,and the first derivative of f exists on [o,infinity),and the first derivative of f increasing on [o,infinity),

    1-show that g(x)=(f(x)/x) is increasing on [o,infinity).


    2-show that if the first derivative of f(c)=0 for some c>0, if f(x)>=0,then f(x)=0 on the inteval [0,c].

    please i need a big fat hint for this question anyone can help? thank you
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 11, 2007 #2

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Did you find the derivative of g(x) yet?
     
  4. Dec 11, 2007 #3
    so i took the derivative of g(x) and it is equal to =(x.derivative of f(x)-f(x))/x^2
    then you equal it to zero (first derivative test) so the final answer is
    derivative of f(x)=f(x)/x
    and from the question we know that derivative of f(x) is continuous on [o,infinity) so f(x)/x (which is g(x)) is also continuous on [o,infinity) .
    is that the right answer for part 1 if it is tell me and give a hint for par 2.
    thank you
     
  5. Dec 11, 2007 #4
    Perturbed Theory

    Hi all. Attached is a pdf file w/ the appropriate refs.
    I've been reading a paper at the following link:

    www.cims.nyu.edu/~eve2/reg_pert.pdf

    I have several questions:

    In the first example they use the method to approximate the roots for

    x^2 - 1 = "epsilon" x

    I was under the impression - wrongly perhaps - that f(x) had to have continuous derivatives to use the Taylor series. When you go to f'''(a), the coefficient c3 vanishes. And, strictly speaking isn't this a Maclaurin series?

    In the problem for x^2 -1 = "epsilon" e^x
    The coefficient X2 for x = -1 is 3/8e^2.
    I'm sure of this since I went through it several times.

    I don't understand what the second figure - Figure 2 - is referring to at all (why two)??
    And what "3" solutions? Doesn't a quadratic have 2 solutions? What is the solid line in the figure a plot of anyway?

    I apologize that I can't post it verbatim but I'm unable to cut and paste from an Adobe file to this format and I'm really having problems using the LaTex editor. I'd appreciate any commentary. Thank you.
    John
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Dec 11, 2007 #5
    you John or whatever this topic is for the question in the first post so be good and get out and make your own topic ok
     
  7. Dec 11, 2007 #6

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think what inferi means is that if you have a new questio, John, you should start a new thread about it in the appropriate forum.

    Both of you should note that homework/textbook questions should be posted in the homework forums and not the main maths forums. Please do so in future.
     
  8. Dec 11, 2007 #7

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The function F(x;ε) = f(x) - εe^x in your example has continuous derivatives (w/r/t x).
    My understanding is, it will be a Macl. series if the derivatives are evaluated at x = 0.
    Is Fig. 2 meant for F, or one of the roots of F(x) = 0, which would be x*(ε)?
    f is quadratic, F isn't.
    One of the roots of F = 0, as a function of ε.
     
  9. Dec 11, 2007 #8
    I tought in e:

    d/dx (e^u) = e^u *du

    what is the n-th derivative of e^kx? ( k = constant and x = variable)

    f = e^kx - 1 obs: f(0) = 0
    f'= ke^kx
    f''=k^2*e^kx
    (...)

    the n-th derivative = k^n*e^kx

    g = f/x = (e^kx - 1)/x

    e^kx - 1 is increasing faster than x, because f' > g', so g will grow when x grows

    but I couldn't satisfy the second condition
     
  10. Dec 11, 2007 #9
    so what about the second part of my question? please anyone can help?
     
  11. Dec 11, 2007 #10

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    al-mahed, you tried solving it for a specific f, not for all possible functions.

    If [tex]f(x)=(x-1)^2-1[/tex]. f(x) is continuous on [0,infinity), the first derivative exists on the interval, the first derivative is increasing, f(0)=0 yet the second property is not satisfied. Similiarly, f(x)=(x+1)^2-1 doesn't satisfy the first property. Is there a condition on what the derivative of f at 0 is or something like that?
     
  12. Dec 11, 2007 #11
    This is another problem from rudin and is the first nontrivial question on the Differentiation problem set. Play with the facts given - after a couple of hours of struggling you'll know it's head from it's tail. Then maybe after a couple of days you'll stumble upon the correct solution - posting here for answers is NOT the point of taking an analysis course.

    You will need to reread and absorb the theorems on differentiation to solve this. Judging from your last post you don't understand what the mean value theorem is saying and without that understanding the solution will remain elusive.
     
  13. Dec 12, 2007 #12

    if tou do not know to answer just say so, but do not be like someone that thinks he is better than anyone ok.
     
  14. Dec 12, 2007 #13
    First of all, I DO know a solution. When I took my intro analysis course over a year ago this was a problem I worked on, I struggled with it for days before I got the solution, but i DID get it, and on my own at that.

    You have posted the question on a forum without any proof that you have even ATTEMPTED a proof. On your last thread you did the same thing, moreover you don't seem to understand what the theorems are saying. You are learning the subject for the first time, it's a bad idea to ask for "big fat hints" whenever a solution doesn't come to you right away.

    I'm simply telling you that you need to WORK if you want to learn analysis, the purpose of this board is to HELP but that doesn't mean we'll do the work for you.
     
  15. Dec 12, 2007 #14
    useful notation: the derivative of f(x)=f '(x)

    so you are correct when you say g '(x)=(xf '(x)-f(x))/x^2. Why are you setting it to zero?

    The hypothesis does NOT say that f '(x) is continuous on [0, infinity), but it does say it EXISTS and is increasing on that interval. Even if f(x)/x is continuous what is your argument that shows that this fact implies g(x) is increasing?

    Query: What fact about g'(x) implies that g(x) is increasing?
    Query: What is the exact statement of the mean value theorem.
    Query: Under the given conditions of the problem, where can you apply the mean value theorem?
     
  16. Dec 12, 2007 #15
    For #1 I would just take the derivative in a straight forward manner using the quotient rule. For #2 it seems to be pretty straight forward if you try a “proof by contradiction”.
     
  17. Dec 12, 2007 #16
    Hi SiddharthM,

    Thx for your help here!

    I never took analysis classes, but i´ll try to do something...

    [1] mean value theorem: if f(x) is continuous on [a,b] and L is a real number such that f(a)<L<f(b) or f(b)<L<f(a), then there is at least a "c" on [a,b] such that f(c)=L


    Query: What fact about g'(x) implies that g(x) is increasing?

    A: g'(x)>0

    Query: What is the exact statement of the mean value theorem.

    A: [1]

    Query: Under the given conditions of the problem, where can you apply the mean value theorem

    A: to prove that f(x)=0 on the inteval [0,c]

    We need to prove f(x) is continuous on [0,c] in order to apply the mean value theorem
     
  18. Dec 12, 2007 #17
    you haven't taken an analysis course? advanced calculus? Frankly you are in over your head if you have never taken or not even enrolled in one of these courses.

    [1] is the intermediate value theorem not the mean value theorem.

    yes, if you show g'(x) is greater than (or equal) to zero on a interval then it follows that g(x) is increasing on that interval.
     
  19. Dec 13, 2007 #18
    Analysis = calculus? Or saying analysis you mean Real Analysis?

    Well, you said that if g'(x) = 0 g(x) is increasing? correct?

    [1]g(x)=5 ==> g'(x) = 0 ==> there is no inclination of the tangent at all

    [2]g(x) = x^2 - 2x ==> g(x) = 2x - 2 ==> there is no inclination on x = 1

    in [1] g(x) never increases

    in [2] g(x) do not increase if x = 2

    ps: what means "you are in over your heard"? (I'm not so good in english)
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2007
  20. Dec 13, 2007 #19
    bt the way, could someone state correctly the problem?
     
  21. Dec 13, 2007 #20
    Analysis is not calculus, it is sometimes called advanced calculus and sometimes real analysis. Although Real analysis can also refer to higher level analysis - measure theory. Analysis is basically a rigorous treatment of Calculus in which one builds the theory of real numbers so that the theorems of calculus can be proven.

    The problem is correctly stated in the first post of the thread.

    If a function is monotonically increasing it means that if x<y then f(x) (less than or equal to) f(y). So the constant functions ARE monotonically increasing (and monotonically decreasing for that matter). The definition for a Strictly increasing function means the inequality is strict (ie < or > but not equal to).

    I say in over your head to say that the problem requires a deeper understanding than that acquired at the level of calculus.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Anyone can figur this out ?
Loading...