Limit of Derivatives and Existence of Limits

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankpupu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiable
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of derivatives and the existence of limits in the context of calculus. The original poster presents several statements regarding the behavior of functions and their derivatives as x approaches infinity, questioning their validity and seeking clarification on proofs and counterexamples.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the statements regarding limits and derivatives, questioning the conditions under which these limits exist. They discuss potential counterexamples and the reasoning behind the relationships between a function and its derivative.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the statements, providing insights and counterexamples. Some have offered guidance on how to approach the proofs, while others are questioning the assumptions and interpretations of the original statements. There is a collaborative effort to clarify concepts and refine arguments.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the need for specific examples that satisfy the conditions of the statements, particularly in relation to functions with discontinuities or specific behaviors at infinity. There are also discussions about the implications of boundedness and the application of the fundamental theorem of calculus in their reasoning.

frankpupu
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


can someone help me to see whether the following statements choose or false

a) if lim(X->infinite)f(x) exists and is finite and lim(X->infinite)f'(x)=b then b=0
i think it is right but i don't know how to prove it

b)if lim(X->infinite)f(x) exists and is finite then lim(X->infinite)f'(x)=0
i have no idea guesses right

c)lim(X->infinite)f'(x)=0 then lim(X->infinite)f(x) exists
counterexample: f(x)=lnx

d))lim(X->infinite)f'(x)=0 then lim(X->infinite)f(x)/x=0
no idea as well
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For (a), suppose b > 0. Then f'(x) > b/2 for all sufficiently large x. What does this imply about f(x) for sufficiently large x?

For (b), think about a function that has jump discontinuities at arbitrarily large values of x. Then f'(x) will not exist at the jumps, so lim(X->infinite)f'(x) won't exist, either. Can you come up with an example like this that still satisfies "lim(X->infinite)f(x) exists and is finite"?

For (c), your counterexample is fine.

For (d), given epsilon > 0, you have |f'(x)| < epsilon for all sufficiently large x. Pick a specific such x, call it x0. Then for all x beyond that point, f(x) must be bounded between two lines, of slope +/- epsilon. Work out the equations for those lines, and see what this implies about f(x)/x for x > x0.
 
jbunniii said:
For (a), suppose b > 0. Then f'(x) > b/2 for all sufficiently large x. What does this imply about f(x) for sufficiently large x?

For (b), think about a function that has jump discontinuities at arbitrarily large values of x. Then f'(x) will not exist at the jumps, so lim(X->infinite)f'(x) won't exist, either. Can you come up with an example like this that still satisfies "lim(X->infinite)f(x) exists and is finite"?

For (c), your counterexample is fine.

For (d), given epsilon > 0, you have |f'(x)| < epsilon for all sufficiently large x. Pick a specific such x, call it x0. Then for all x beyond that point, f(x) must be bounded between two lines, of slope +/- epsilon. Work out the equations for those lines, and see what this implies about f(x)/x for x > x0.

sorry ,for a) i still can understand how to prove it , can u give me more details then cfor b) my example is y=[x] the integer part of x
and for d) i think that for all sufficiently large x , take x0, for all x beyond that point then then
-epsilon<f'(x)<+epsilon , then -epsilonx<f(x)>epsilonx then ,f(x)/x for all x0 bounded by epsilon that is 0 does it make sense?
 
frankpupu said:
sorry ,for a) i still can understand how to prove it , can u give me more details then cfor b) my example is y=[x] the integer part of x
and for d) i think that for all sufficiently large x , take x0, for all x beyond that point then then
-epsilon<f'(x)<+epsilon , then -epsilonx<f(x)>epsilonx then ,f(x)/x for all x0 bounded by epsilon that is 0 does it make sense?

Your counterexample for (b) doesn't work, because [x] goes to infinity as x goes to infinity. You have to make the jumps smaller and smaller as x goes to infinity.

I didn't understand your argument for (d). Can you write it out with a bit more detail?

For (a), suppose b > 0. Then for sufficiently large x, f'(x) > b/2. More precisely, there exists an x0 such that f'(x) > b/2 for all x > x0. Therefore, for all x > x0, you have f(x) > (b/2)x + f(x0). [Why?] This means that f(x) -> infinity as x -> infinity. [Why?]

The b < 0 case is almost identical.
 
jbunniii said:
Your counterexample for (b) doesn't work, because [x] goes to infinity as x goes to infinity. You have to make the jumps smaller and smaller as x goes to infinity.

I didn't understand your argument for (d). Can you write it out with a bit more detail?

For (a), suppose b > 0. Then for sufficiently large x, f'(x) > b/2. More precisely, there exists an x0 such that f'(x) > b/2 for all x > x0. Therefore, for all x > x0, you have f(x) > (b/2)x + f(x0). [Why?] This means that f(x) -> infinity as x -> infinity. [Why?]

The b < 0 case is almost identical.
for b)i can create a function s.t. in some interval it is a straight line ,but when x is large enougn then f(x)=1 100<x<10000 f(x)=1/2 10000<x<!00000 f(x)=1/3 100000<x<1000000000...

for d) we have -epsilon<f'(x)<epsilon for x >x0 , then -epsilonx-f(x0)<f(X)<epsilonx+f(x0) since then the slope of f(X) between -epsilon and epsilon.then diveided then inequality on both side by x assume x >0 then -epsilon-f(x0)/x<f(X)<epsilon+f(X0)/x then as x->infinity then f(X0)/x=0 so we get f(X)/x convergent to 0 done
 
frankpupu said:
for b)i can create a function s.t. in some interval it is a straight line ,but when x is large enougn then f(x)=1 100<x<10000 f(x)=1/2 10000<x<!00000 f(x)=1/3 100000<x<1000000000...

Yes, that works. Or, if you wanted a function that is easier to express, you could use something like f(x) = 1/[x].

for d) we have -epsilon<f'(x)<epsilon for x >x0 , then -epsilonx-f(x0)<f(X)<epsilonx+f(x0) since then the slope of f(X) between -epsilon and epsilon.

Actually it would be [itex]-\epsilon x + f(x_0) < f(x) < \epsilon x + f(x_0)[/itex] (plus, not minus, in the first expression).

then diveided then inequality on both side by x assume x >0 then -epsilon-f(x0)/x<f(X)<epsilon+f(X0)/x then as x->infinity then f(X0)/x=0 so we get f(X)/x convergent to 0 done

The rest looks OK.

You should probably provide some justification for how you transformed

[tex]-\epsilon < f'(x) < \epsilon[/tex]

into

[tex]-\epsilon x + f(x_0) < f(x) < \epsilon x + f(x_0)[/tex]

i.e. Did you use the fundamental theorem of calculus? And if so, what happens if [itex]f'[/itex] is not integrable?
 
jbunniii said:
Yes, that works. Or, if you wanted a function that is easier to express, you could use something like f(x) = 1/[x].



Actually it would be [itex]-\epsilon x + f(x_0) < f(x) < \epsilon x + f(x_0)[/itex] (plus, not minus, in the first expression).


The rest looks OK.

You should probably provide some justification for how you transformed

[tex]-\epsilon < f'(x) < \epsilon[/tex]

into

[tex]-\epsilon x + f(x_0) < f(x) < \epsilon x + f(x_0)[/tex]

i.e. Did you use the fundamental theorem of calculus? And if so, what happens if [itex]f'[/itex] is not integrable?



no, but anyway thank you for helping me to solve the problem
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K