Proving the Limit of the Derivative Approaches Zero with a Function's Limit

In summary, CC asked if it is possible to prove that the function f'(n) is zero, but CC is still confused. CC's original question was about a possible counter-example, but CC is now asking about the full theorem. CC has tried to use the definition of the derivative, but is still confused. CC is asking for help with the full theorem.
  • #1
happyg1
308
0
Hi,
I asked this question in a post a few days ago and got no response, so I thought I'd rephrase it and try again.
If I know that
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} f(n)=0[/tex]
how can I prove that [tex] \lim_{n\to\infty} f'(n)=0[/tex]?
My thoughts are: Since the function itsself is headed to zero that there will be a horizontal tangent line eventually, thus the derivative will be zero. I'm not sure if that's even reasonable.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
CC
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, you can't, since the proposition is false!
Consider the function [itex]f(n)=\frac{1}{n}\cos(e^{n})[/itex] as a counter-example.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
now I'm confused even more if
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}f(n)=\frac{1}{n}cos(e^n)\neq 0[/tex]
then
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}f'(n)=\lim(\frac{1}{n}(-sin(e^n)e^n)+cos(e^n)(-\frac{1}{n^2}))\neq 0[/tex]
what am I missing?
according to the origional thing I was trying to prove, this HAS to be true. I didn't want to clutter up my question with a lot of scary looking formulae. I think that's why no one responded.
CC
 
Last edited:
  • #4
ok ok ok (aching head...)
I don't think that's a counterexample, because the limit of the origional function isn't zero, it oscillates and therefore has no limit.
PLEASE help me here
CC
 
  • #5
happyg1 said:
ok ok ok (aching head...)
I don't think that's a counterexample, because the limit of the origional function isn't zero, it oscillates and therefore has no limit.
PLEASE help me here
CC

That limit is definitely zero, the top is always between -1 and 1 and the bottom goes to infinity so the limit is zero.
 
  • #6
We have:
[tex]|f(n)|=\frac{|\cos(e^{n})|}{n}\leq\frac{1}{n}[/tex]
Tends to zero..
 
  • #7
ok,
if you look at the origional post, this is what I was trying to prove:
Given that b and c are not functions of n and [tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}\psi(n)=0[/tex]
prove that

[tex]\lim_{n\to \infty}\left[ 1+\frac{b}{n} +\frac{\psi(n)}{n}\right]^{cn} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(1+\frac{b}{n}\right)^{cn}=e^{bc}[/tex]
I see that the counter example works, but then this theorem from advanced calc is wrong. I just can't prove it. I'm missing something.
please take a look at "exponential function on the 2nd page of this forum. HELP
CC
 
Last edited:
  • #8
yes,
I read you there, but why then is this theorem true? Do I need to make some assumptions about this [tex]\psi(n)[/tex]? And if so WHAT?
I have tried to use the definition of the derivative from the BEGINNING of the calc book, i.e.
[tex]\lim_{a\to\ 0}\frac{\psi(n+a)-\psi(n)}{a}[/tex]
if I know that this is continuous then I can move the [tex]\lim_{a\to 0}[/tex] inside of the big limit up there, but I don't even know that.
What what what?
then IF that's true, don't i still have to apply L'hopital to that and go in another circle?
DANG
CC
 
  • #9
I think I gave you wrong advice on the nonmonotonic limit. I am going to delete what I put, sorry.
 
  • #10
The full theorem appears true to me, though I don't see why you'd invoke l'hopital at all. It doesn't need differentiation. It is a straight forward epsilon type argument. Given any e>0 b/n+f(n)/n is bound between b/n-e and b/n+e for all n sufficiently large hence result follows. (Fill in the blanks.)
 
  • #11
It is perhaps easiest to prove it by doing the following steps:
1. Assuming that [itex]\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n})^{n}[/itex] exists, we'll have:
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n})^{cn}=(\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n})^{n})^{c}[/tex]

2. Since the exponential function is continuous, we have:
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n})^{n} =e^{\lim_{n\to\infty}n*log(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n})}[/tex]

3. Given that the right-hand side limits can be shown to exist, we have:
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}n*log(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n})=\lim_{n\to\infty}n*log(1+\frac{b}{n})+\lim_{n\to\infty}n*log(1+\frac{\psi(n)}{n+b})[/tex]

You may do the rest
 
  • #12
OK,
So the whole thing on the RHS there is still raised to the c power, right? and the[tex]e^{bc}[/tex] from the origional equation is still on the FAR RHS..like this:
[tex](\lim_{n\to\infty}n*log(1+\frac{b+\psi(n)}{n}))^c=(\lim _{n\to\infty}n*log(1+\frac{b}{n})+\lim_{n\to\infty }n*log(1+\frac{\psi(n)}{n+b}))^c = e^{bc}[/tex]
I have a couple of questions. First, where did the[tex](1+\frac{\psi(n)}{n+b})[/tex] come from? I can't get it to match up when I try to break it up. Second, if I take the limits of both of those terms, aren't they zero?So I will get something like [tex]0^c = e^{bc}[/tex] which isn't true.
This problem has really gotten me confused.
The reason I tried it with L'hopital is because that's what my professor suggested...
I know that this isn't as hard as I'm making it.
Any clarification will be GREATLY appreciated.
CC
 
  • #13
[tex]((1+\frac{b}{n})+\frac{\psi}{n})=(1+\frac{b}{n})(1+\frac{\psi}{n(1+\frac{b}{n})})=(1+\frac{b}{n})(1+\frac{\psi}{n+b})[/tex]

As for completing the argument, use that [tex]log(1+\epsilon)\approx\epsilon, \epsilon<<1[/tex]
 
  • #14
OK,
Thanks for the algebra there. I was forgetting my n on the bottom after taking the 1+b/n out.
So what you're saying is that since [tex]log(1+\epsilon)\approx\epsilon[/tex] I should use that to get my terms to look a bit nicer. Let me see if I'm thinking like I need to be:
I will say that [tex]\left(\lim_{n\to \infty}(n*log(1+\frac{b}{n})+\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+\frac{\psi(n)}{b+n})\right)^c\approx(\epsilon n+\epsilon n)^c[/tex]
then I raise it to the e power to get something like [tex](e^{2n\epsilon})^c[/tex]

am I even close?
I am still having trouble seeing how the two sides will match up.
My professor likes proofs to be super rigorous.
Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
nope, you have now, the approximate expression for the log sum:
[tex]n*\frac{b}{n}+n*\frac{\psi}{b+n}\approx{b}+\psi[/tex]
That is, when exponentiating:

[tex](e^{b+\psi})^{c}=e^{bc}e^{\psi{c}}[/tex]
 
  • #16
Yes yes, I got that after taking a third look at what I did and putting the b/n and [tex]\frac{\psi}{n}[/tex] in for my [tex]\epsilon[/tex] terms. I see that the n's will cancel our in the first term. The second term is worrying me, though. We are assuming that the n*1/(b+n)is really close to 1 get that approximation, right?
Then when we exponentiate, are we still to take the limit to get that [tex]e^{\psi c}=1[/tex] ? We know that [tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}\psi(n)=0[/tex].
I guess my question is where in the proof do use that to get [tex]e^{\psi c}=1[/tex]
Thankyou again.
CC
 
Last edited:
  • #17
1. n/(b+n) is about 1 when n is big.
2. Since psi goes to zero, we have [tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}e^{\psi{c}}=e^{0}=1[/tex]
 
  • #18
Thank you so much for all of your help on this. I actually understand it and the fog has been lifted.
Thank you thank you thank you.
 
  • #19
You are welcome!

I guess it is the place to comment upon your original question, and state more precisely the conditions that must be met for the derivative to vanish at infinity if the function does.

Note that in the ugly oscillation function, the derivative is constantly CHANGING SIGNS.

If, however the function is (after some finite x-value) increasing (that is, its derivative non-negative) then the derivative is going to vanish at infinity.
Alternatively, of course, if the function is eventually decreasing, then the derivative will vanish as well.
 
  • #20
So if I somehow knew that the [tex]\psi(n)[/tex] function was monotone (up or down), then I could do the proof with L'hopital's rule. I wonder if I'm missing something in my givens or something I should have seen in the context of the question to lead me to assume that. This problem was given by my stats professor in addition to homework on limiting the moment generating function. Hmmmmmm...
 
  • #21
No, you cannot use l'hopital, where does it say anything about psi beign differentiable? Heck, all you needs is that psi is bounded and it works.
 

1. What does it mean when the derivative goes to zero?

When the derivative of a function goes to zero, it means that the slope of the function at that point is flat or horizontal. This indicates a change in the function's rate of change, or in other words, the function is not increasing or decreasing at that point.

2. What is the significance of the derivative going to zero?

The derivative going to zero can have multiple meanings depending on the context. In some cases, it can indicate a critical point or stationary point, where the function reaches a maximum or minimum value. It can also represent a point of inflection or change in concavity of the function.

3. Can a function have a derivative of zero at more than one point?

Yes, a function can have a derivative of zero at multiple points. This typically occurs when the function has a flat or horizontal section, or when it reaches a maximum or minimum value. It is also possible for a function to have an infinite number of points where the derivative is zero, such as in a constant function.

4. What does it mean when the derivative is always zero?

If the derivative of a function is always zero, it means that the function is constant. This is because the slope of a constant function is always zero, indicating that the function is neither increasing nor decreasing.

5. How can the derivative going to zero be used in real-world applications?

The derivative going to zero can be used to find maximum or minimum values in optimization problems, such as finding the minimum cost for a production process. It can also be used to determine the point of inflection in a curve, which can be useful in understanding the behavior of a system or process. Additionally, the derivative going to zero is a key concept in calculus and is used in various fields such as physics, economics, and engineering.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
620
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
667
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
691
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
777
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
785
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
711
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
361
Back
Top