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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of differentiability given the condition that the second derivative at a point, ##f''(c) = 1##. The confusion arises regarding the implication from the antecedent ##0 < |x - c| < \delta## to the consequent, specifically whether it should be ##|f''(x) - f''(c)| < \frac{1}{2}##. The correct interpretation is that the limit definition reformulates the condition using ##\epsilon = 0.5##, leading to the conclusion that ##|f'(x) - f'(c)| < \frac{3}{2}## for all ##|x - c| < \delta##.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with the definition of derivatives
  • Knowledge of second derivatives
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition of limits in calculus
  • Learn about the implications of the Mean Value Theorem
  • Explore the concept of continuity and differentiability
  • Review examples of differentiable functions and their derivatives
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, mathematicians focusing on analysis, and educators teaching concepts of differentiability and limits.

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!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: docnet
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   Reactions: docnet and member 731016

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K