Differentiable function proof given ##f''(c) = 1##

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the implications of the limit definition in proving differentiability given that f''(c) = 1. The user questions whether the consequent should be |f''(x) - f''(c)| < 1/2, suggesting that f''(x) should appear in the expression. However, it is clarified that f''(c) = 1 allows for a reformulation using the definition of the derivative, leading to the limit expression without explicitly including f''(x). The proof demonstrates that the limit definition holds true under the specified conditions. Understanding this relationship is crucial for grasping the proof's validity.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this problem,
1717373282545.png

I'm confused by the implication from the antecedent ##0 < |x - c| < \delta## to the consequent. Should the consequent not be ##|f''(x) - f''(c)| < \frac{1}{2}## where ##\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}## (Since we are applying the definition of a limit for the first derivative curve)?

##|f''(x) - f''(c)| < \frac{1}{2}##

##\leftrightarrow |f''(x) - \frac{f'(x) - f'(c)}{x - c}| < \frac{1}{2}##

##\leftrightarrow |f''(x) - 1| < \frac{1}{2}##

I don't understand why they don't have ##f''(x)## in their expression. Does someone please know why?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
Homework Statement: Please see below
Relevant Equations: Please see below

For this problem,
View attachment 346372
I'm confused by the implication from the antecedent ##0 < |x - c| < \delta## to the consequent. Should the consequent not be ##|f''(x) - f''(c)| < \frac{1}{2}## where ##\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}## (Since we are applying the definition of a limit for the first derivative curve)?
Why? We already have ##f''(c)=1.## The statement is just a reformulation of this fact by using the definition of a derivative, choosing ##\varepsilon =0.5## and the definition of a limit with this given margin ##\varepsilon .## The proof goes:

\begin{align*}
1&=f''(c)\stackrel{\text{short for}}{=}\left. \dfrac{d}{dx} \right|_{x=c}f'(x)\stackrel{\text{def. of derivative of }f'}{=}\lim_{x \to c}\dfrac{f'(x)-f'(c)}{x-c}\\[12pt]
0&=\left(\lim_{x \to c}\dfrac{f'(x)-f'(c)}{x-c}\right)-1=\lim_{x \to c}\left(\dfrac{f'(x)-f'(c)}{x-c} - 1\right)\\[12pt]
&\left|\dfrac{f'(x)-f'(c)}{x-c}-1\right| \stackrel{\text{def. of limit at }x=c}{<} \varepsilon :=\dfrac{1}{2} \text{ for all } |x-c|<\delta\\[12pt]
&\substack{\text{definition of} \\ \text{the absolute values}}\quad\dfrac{1}{2}=1-\varepsilon <\dfrac{f'(x)-f'(c)}{x-c}<1+\varepsilon =\dfrac{3}{2} \text{ for all } c-\delta <x<c+\delta
\end{align*}
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes docnet and member 731016
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...