Does the Limit of f'(x) as x Approaches xi Guarantee f'(xi) Equals L?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which the limit of the derivative of a continuous function as it approaches a point guarantees the existence and value of the derivative at that point. The original poster presents a proof attempting to establish that if the derivative approaches a limit L as x approaches xi, then f'(xi) exists and equals L.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the application of the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) and the implications of limits in the context of derivatives. There are discussions about the correct formulation of the difference quotient and the conditions under which limits can be evaluated.

Discussion Status

Some participants express concerns about the original proof's accuracy and clarity, suggesting corrections and simplifications. There is an ongoing examination of the definitions and properties of derivatives, with multiple interpretations being explored regarding the relationship between the limit of the derivative and the derivative's value at a specific point.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential complications in the proof related to the choice of variables and the application of the Mean Value Theorem, indicating a need for careful consideration of the conditions under which the theorem applies.

JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



If the continuous function f(x) has a derivative f'(x) at each point x in the neighborhood of [tex]x=\xi[/tex], and if [tex]f'(x)[/tex] approaches a limit L as [tex]x \rightarrow \xi[/tex], then show [tex]f'(\xi)[/tex] exists and is equal to L.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Since the derivative exists at each point x in the neighborhood of [tex]x = \xi[/tex] and f'(x) tends to a limit L as [tex]x \rightarrow \xi[/tex], we have [tex]|f'(x) - L| < \epsilon[/tex] whenever [tex]|x-\xi| < \delta[/tex]. Since we can take x arbitrarily close to [tex]\xi[/tex], we can write [tex]x = \xi + h[/tex] for any real h. In this case, we will take h to be positive. We then have [tex]|f'(\xi + h) - L| < \epsilon[/tex] whenever [tex]|h| < \delta[/tex].

Now, choose a positive quantity h* such that [tex]0 < h < h* < \delta[/tex]. The following inequality is then true: [tex]\xi < \xi + h < \xi + h*[/tex]. We have formed an open neighborhood about the point [tex]x = \xi + h[/tex]. Then by the Mean Value Theorem, we have [tex]f'(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi + h) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex]. So we then have [tex]|\frac{f(\xi + h) - f(\xi)}{h*} - L| < \epsilon[/tex] whenever [tex]|h*| < \delta[/tex]. This inequality says that the limit of the quotient [tex]\frac{f(\xi + h) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex] as h* approaches 0 through positive values exists, and is equal to L. Using a similar argument it is easy to see that for h* tending to 0 through negative values, the limit is again L. Thus the derivative at [tex]f'(\xi)[/tex] exists and is equal to L.Is this proof correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There's definitely some problems though I think you've got the right idea. The MVT doesn't say
[tex] f'(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi + h) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex]
It says
[tex] f'(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi + h*) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex]
And I think you should be able to write this much more simply, e.g. the limit h->0 of (f(xi+h)-f(xi))/h is f'(xi). The MVT says there is a point y_h in [xi,xi+h] such that f'(y_h) is the same as the difference quotient. As h->0, y_h->xi so f'(y_h)->L. And there's really no need to split it into sides, you don't have anyone sided limits or derivatives.
 
Oops, I mean't to write [tex]f(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi+h*) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex] for h* > h. I chose h* > h because if I chose h* < h, then I have xi < xi + h* < xi + h, and I cannot write out the derivative of xi + h as the difference quotient using xi and xi + h* (I believe the MVT says that xi + h must be contained in the open interval (xi, xi+h*).) But choosing h* so that h < h* < delta, h* goes to 0 and the quotient [f(xi + h) - f(xi)]/[h*] will go to L since the quotient - L is less than epsilon.I see what you're saying though. I have made the problem more complicated than I had to. But with my correction above, is my proof correct?
 
Last edited:
JG89 said:
Oops, I mean't to write [tex]f(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi+h*) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex] for h* > h. I chose h* > h because if I chose h* < h, then I have xi < xi + h* < xi + h, and I cannot write out the derivative of xi + h as the difference quotient using xi and xi + h* (I believe the MVT says that xi + h must be contained in the open interval (xi, xi+h*).) But choosing h* so that h < h* < delta, h* goes to 0 and the quotient [f(xi + h) - f(xi)][h*] will go to L since the quotient - L is less than epsilon.


I see what you're saying though. I have made the problem more complicated than I had to. But with my correction above, is my proof correct?

I believe (f(x+h)-f(x))/h approaches f'(x). And I believe there is an 0<h*<h such that f'(x+h*)=(f(x+h)-f(x))/h. But I don't think (f(x+h)-f(x))/h* has to approach anything.
 
Dick said:
I believe (f(x+h)-f(x))/h approaches f'(x). And I believe there is an 0<h*<h such that f'(x+h*)=(f(x+h)-f(x))/h. But I don't think (f(x+h)-f(x))/h* has to approach anything.

But if you have 0 < h < h* then you have [tex]f'(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi + h*) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex] which approaches L as h* approaches 0. Since L is a definite value, then the limit exists. Isn't this the definition of a derivative or am I missing something here...
 
Last edited:
JG89 said:
But if you have 0 < h < h* then you have [tex]f'(\xi + h) = \frac{f(\xi + h*) - f(\xi)}{h*}[/tex] which approaches L as h* approaches 0. Since L is a definite value, then the limit exists. Isn't this the definition of a derivative or am I missing something here...

That's fine. As h*->0 the left side approaches L because the limit of the derivative exists and since h*>h>0 that means h->0 which means the right side approaches f'(xi) since f is differentiable at xi. That's the proof all right. I was just worried because you were writing expressions like (f(xi+h)-f(xi))/h*, mixing h and h* in the difference quotient.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K