Is function of convergent sequence rate of change equal to derivative?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the limit of the difference quotient of a function evaluated at a convergent sequence and the derivative of that function at the limit point. Participants explore whether the limit expression given is equal to the derivative, considering various conditions and examples.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the limit of the difference quotient of a function at a convergent sequence equals the derivative of the function at the limit point, but seeks proof or counter-examples.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial claim, stating that the limit of the function at the sequence converges to the same value as the limit of the function at the point.
  • A different viewpoint is introduced, noting that if the derivative is not continuous, the proposed equality may not hold, citing a specific function as an example.
  • One participant suggests that continuity of the function and its derivative can be assumed, but questions the validity of directly applying definitions of the derivative to the limit expression provided.
  • Another participant mentions the application of the mean value theorem under the assumption of continuity of the derivative, suggesting it could establish the desired equality.
  • There is acknowledgment of a specific function known for having a derivative everywhere but lacking continuity, with a belief that the equality still holds for certain sequences approaching the limit point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express both agreement and disagreement regarding the conditions under which the limit of the difference quotient equals the derivative. Some agree with the initial claim under certain assumptions, while others raise concerns about continuity and the applicability of definitions, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the continuity of the derivative and the specific conditions under which the proposed equality may hold, highlighting the complexity of the definitions involved.

brian44
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Given a convergent sequence [tex]x_n \rightarrow x[/tex] and a function f, is
[tex]lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(x_n) - f(x_{n-1})}{x_n - x_{n-1}} = f'(x)[/tex] ?

I believe it it is, but I haven't been able to figure out how to prove it. Does anyone know of a proof or counter-example?

And probably should add [tex]x_n \not = x_{n-1} \forall n[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Saying that
[tex]\lim_{x\to a} f(x)= F[/tex]
is exactly the same as saying
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} f(x_n)= F[/tex]
where
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n= a[/tex]

so, yes, your equation is correct.
 
Certainly if the derivative is not continuous this isn't going to work. For the function f(x)=x2sin(1/x) when x is not 0, f(0)=0, this is differentiable with a derivative of 0 at 0. But its derivative is 2xsin(1/x)-cos(1/x) is not continuous (see wolfram alpha for a graph) and you can find a sequence of points converging to zero such that the difference quotient evaluates to whatever you want it to be really
 
We may assume f and f' are continuous, since that is not the main question I am concerned with.

HallsofIvy said:
Saying that
[tex]\lim_{x\to a} f(x)= F[/tex]
is exactly the same as saying
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} f(x_n)= F[/tex]
where
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n= a[/tex]

so, yes, your equation is correct.
It is not quite the same thing, since that is not how the derivative is defined - all definitions I've seen have one value fixed. I.e. just plugging in [tex]x_n[/tex] to [tex]f'(x)[/tex] does not give the same function as I described, so sequential characterization doesn't work directly:

[tex]f'(x_n) = \lim_{x \rightarrow x_n} \frac{f(x) - f(x_n)}{x-x_n}[/tex]

or we could define it as

[tex]f'(x) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(x) - f(x_n)}{x-x_n}[/tex]

However neither of these are the same as the limit I gave, in which both [tex]x_n[/tex] and [tex]x_{n-1}[/tex] are changing sequences, and aren't fixed. Even if accepted as another definition, then can you offer a proof the definitions are equivalent?The problem I was stuck with when I tried to use something like
[tex]f'(x_n) = \lim_{x \rightarrow x_n} \frac{f(x) - f(x_n)}{x-x_n}[/tex]
to get a bound, is that then any delta requirement depends on the specific value of n, but I may need to choose n large enough so that [tex]x_n[/tex] and [tex]x_{n-1}[/tex] meet the delta requirement, but that ends up potentially changing [tex]x_n[/tex] and the delta needed again since it depends on the specific x_n, so it's sort of like a race condition.
 
Last edited:
Well if f' is continuous at x and f' is defined in a neighborhood of x, you should be able to apply the mean value theorem to the interval consisting of the endpoints x_(n-1) and x_n (taking n to be large enough to begin with). Then letting n approach infinity and using the continuity of f' at x seems to establish the desired equality.

Note that I did in fact consider Office_Shredder's function (since it is more or less the canonical example of a function whose derivative exists everywhere but does not have a continuous derivative), and for obvious sequences tending to x = 0 I think the equality still holds.
 
snipez90 said:
Well if f' is continuous at x and f' is defined in a neighborhood of x, you should be able to apply the mean value theorem to the interval consisting of the endpoints x_(n-1) and x_n (taking n to be large enough to begin with). Then letting n approach infinity and using the continuity of f' at x seems to establish the desired equality.

Note that I did in fact consider Office_Shredder's function (since it is more or less the canonical example of a function whose derivative exists everywhere but does not have a continuous derivative), and for obvious sequences tending to x = 0 I think the equality still holds.
Ah, thanks! I didn't even think of using the mean-value theorem...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K