1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Derivative Proof

  1. Sep 4, 2009 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Suppose f is a differentiable function. Prove that if f(0) = 0 and |f'(x)| <= |f(x)| then f(x) = 0 for x in (0,1).


    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution

    The actual question asks me to prove f(x) = 0 for all real x, but if I can prove f(x) = 0 for x in (0,1) then the rest follows easily.

    So:

    Assume there exists a c in (0,1) such that f(c) > 0. Then by the MVT there exists a c* in (0,c) such that [tex] \frac{f(c) - f(0)}{c-0} = \frac{f(c)}{c} = f'(c*) [/tex]. We know that [tex] f'(c*) \le f(c*) [/tex]. So [tex] \frac{f(c)}{c} \le f(c*) \Leftrightarrow f(c) \le cf(c*) < f(c*) [/tex] since c is in (0,1).

    It follows that f(c) < f(c*) whenever c* < c. But this means that the function is decreasing. However, f(0) = 0 and from our assumption that f(c) > 0, this must mean that f must be increasing towards f(c), which is a contradiction. The proof for assuming f(c) < 0 is similar.

    I think the proof is a bit shaky in the last paragraph. How is it?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 4, 2009 #2
    I can't view the latex in my post for some reason now. It was fine when I first posted it. Now I just see a banner saying physicsforums.com wherever the latex was before.

    Here is a repost of my proof:


    The actual question asks me to prove f(x) = 0 for all real x, but if I can prove f(x) = 0 for x in (0,1) then the rest follows easily.

    So:

    Assume there exists a c in (0,1) such that f(c) > 0. Then by the MVT there exists a c* in (0,c) such that [tex] \frac{f(c) - f(0)}{c-0} = \frac{f(c)}{c} = f'(c*) [/tex]. We know that [tex] f'(c*) \le f(c*) [/tex]. So [tex] \frac{f(c)}{c} \le f(c*) \Leftrightarrow f(c) \le cf(c*) < f(c*) [/tex] since c is in (0,1).

    It follows that f(c) < f(c*) whenever c* < c. But this means that the function is decreasing. However, f(0) = 0 and from our assumption that f(c) > 0, this must mean that f must be increasing towards f(c), which is a contradiction. The proof for assuming f(c) < 0 is similar.

    I think the proof is a bit shaky in the last paragraph. How is it?
     
  4. Sep 4, 2009 #3
    Although you have the right idea, I don't think the proof works as stands. For one, [tex]|a| \leq |b|[/tex] does not imply [tex]a \leq b,[/tex] and I think this makes many of your inequalities very tenuous.
     
  5. Sep 4, 2009 #4
    We've assumed f(c) > 0, and c is also positive since c is in (0,1). So f(c)/c = f'(c*), making f'(c*) also positive and so [tex] |f'(c*)| \le |f(c*)| \Leftrightarrow f'(c*) \le f(c*) [/tex] so in the inequality follows.

    If we assume f(c) < 0, then the inequality signs work out to find the same contradiction.
     
  6. Sep 4, 2009 #5
    ok, good point. but how do you know that f(c*) won't be negative and greater in magnitude than f'(c*). i may as well have overlooked something.
     
  7. Sep 4, 2009 #6
    f(c*) can't be negative, because f(c)/c is positive, and f(c)/c = f'(c*) <= f(c*)

    Remember we've assumed that |f'(x)| <= |f(x)|, but all the values we're considering right now are positive, so we can drop the absolute value bars.
     
  8. Sep 4, 2009 #7
    Err, so you're essentially precluding the possibility of there being an x in (0,c) for which f(x) < 0? Maybe I'm missing something, but I still don't see how this follows immediately from the assumptions. Yes I'm aware that f(c)/c = f'(c) <= |f(c*)|, but how do you know that the c* in (0,c) isn't so that f(c*) < 0 (note even if f(c*) < 0, it can still be true that 0 < f'(c) =|f'(c)| <= |f(c*)|).
     
  9. Sep 4, 2009 #8
    :( Now I see your point.

    I'm gonna catch some sleep then work on this more tomorrow. I'm sure I'm on the right path to finishing up the proof.
     
  10. Sep 5, 2009 #9

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Well, how about carrying on using the MVT for some more times, like this:

    Proof by Contradiction
    Assume that there exists some [tex]x_1 \in (0, 1) : f(x_1) \neq 0[/tex].
    By the MVT, we have:
    [tex]\exists x_2 \in (0, x_1) : \frac{f(x_1) - f(0)}{x_1 - 0} = f'(x_2) \Rightarrow |f(x_1)| = |f'(x_2)| x_1 \leq |f(x_2)| x_1[/tex]

    Since [tex]f(x_1) \neq 0[/tex], it must follow that: [tex]f(x_2) \neq 0[/tex], we then once again, apply the MTV:

    [tex]\exists x_3 \in (0, x_2) : \frac{f(x_2) - f(0)}{x_2 - 0} = f'(x_3) \Rightarrow |f(x_2)| = |f'(x_3)| x_2 \leq |f(x_3)| x_2 \Rightarrow |f(x_1)| \leq |f(x_2)| x_1 \leq |f(x_3)| x_1 x_2[/tex]

    And so on, you'll be able to construct a sequence (xn), such that:
    [tex]\left\{ \begin{array}{c} f(x_n) \neq 0, \forall n \\ | f(x_{1}) | \leq |f(x_{k})| \prod\limits_{i = 1}^{k - 1} x_i < |f(x_{k})| x_1 ^ {k - 1}, \forall k \geq 2 \end{array} \right.[/tex]

    What can you say about the sequence (xn)? Is it convergent, or divergent?

    From there, can you see what contradiction it leads to?

    ------------------------

    Hopefully you can go from here, right? :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2009
  11. Sep 5, 2009 #10
    The second approach you mentioned is closer to the approach I had in mind that uses JG89's idea. In fact, I think it is possible to argue directly using this idea as well.

    The problem with the first approach seems to be that we cannot assume that f ' is actually integrable.

    There is even a nicer approach via proof by contradiction, I think, that makes full use of the continuity of f. If you consider the right kind of closed interval with a specific delta guaranteed by uniform continuity and use the fact that a continuous function on a closed interval attains maximum and minimum values, then you easily obtain a contradiction via the mean value theorem.
     
  12. Sep 5, 2009 #11

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, my bad. I don't really know what gets into my mind. :(

    Ok, stand corrected. Thanks.. :)
     
  13. Sep 5, 2009 #12
    Thanks for the help guys.

    Someone showed me a simple solution to this that uses VietDao29's method, but proves it directly.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Derivative Proof
  1. Proof of derivative (Replies: 9)

  2. Derivative proof (Replies: 5)

  3. Derivative Proof (Replies: 1)

  4. Derivative proof (Replies: 4)

  5. Derivative Proof (Replies: 6)

Loading...