Proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving properties of a function \( f \) that is strictly increasing on an interval \( (a,b) \) and its inverse function \( g \). Participants are tasked with demonstrating that \( g \) is differentiable and that \( g'(f(x)) = 1/f'(x) \) for \( a < x < b \).

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of \( f' > 0 \) for the continuity and differentiability of \( f \) and its inverse \( g \). There are attempts to manipulate limits and difference quotients to prove the relationship between the derivatives of \( f \) and \( g \). Questions arise regarding the definitions and conditions necessary for the existence of the inverse and its derivative.

Discussion Status

Some participants have made progress in proving that \( f \) is strictly increasing and continuous. There is ongoing exploration of the limits involved in proving the differentiability of \( g \). Multiple interpretations and approaches are being discussed, particularly regarding the manipulation of limits and the relationship between the functions and their inverses.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and theorems required to establish the differentiability of the inverse function. There is mention of the epsilon-delta definition of the derivative and the need for sequences converging to specific values.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] Rudin 5.2

Homework Statement


Suppose f'(x)>0 in (a,b). Prove that f is strictly increasing in (a,b), and let g be its inverse function. Prove that g is differentiable, and that

g'(f(x))=1/f'(x)

when a<x<b.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I can prove that f is strictly increasing. I cannot prove that the inverse exists. Do I have to go back to the epsilon-delta definition of the derivative for this or is there some clevel way I can manipulate the limits...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've proved f is strictly increasing. f is continuous since f' exists, yes? And you can't prove the inverse exists?
 
Dick said:
You've proved f is strictly increasing. f is continuous since f' exists, yes? And you can't prove the inverse exists?

Sorry. I meant I cannot prove that the derivative of the inverse exists.
 
Define 'cannot'. Did you try? If f(x)=y and f is invertible then f^(-1)(y)=x. The difference quotient is (f(x)-f(y))/(x-y). Try using the notion of an inverse. Note f' is non-zero.
 
OK. So, let y be in the range of f (domain of g). Let f(x) = y. Then I want to show that

[tex]\lim_{t\to y}\frac{f(t) - x}{t-f(x)} = \lim_{s\to x} \frac{s-x}{f(s)-f(x)}[/tex]

As you pointed out the right limit exists and equals 1/f'(x). I am just stuck trying to prove that equality.

And cannot is defined as a lack of success after about 20 minutes of trying.
 
Last edited:
If you've been trying to prove that equality for 20 minutes and failing, maybe it's not true. The limit on the left side is (f(y)-x)/(y-f(x)). That's not even a difference quotient. Try and set that up again.
 
[tex] \lim_{t\to y}\frac{g(t) - x}{t-f(x)} = \lim_{s\to x} \frac{s-x}{f(s)-f(x)}[/tex]
 
ehrenfest said:
[tex] \lim_{t\to y}\frac{g(t) - x}{t-f(x)} = \lim_{s\to x} \frac{s-x}{f(s)-f(x)}[/tex]

Brilliant. This is far from the most difficult exercise in Rudin. If that's the closest you can come to actually expressing the problem in symbols, I don't think I can help you.
 
ehrenfest said:
[tex] \lim_{t\to y}\frac{g(t) - x}{t-f(x)} = \lim_{s\to x} \frac{s-x}{f(s)-f(x)}[/tex]

Apologies for the tone of my previous post. I had forgotten you defined g=f^(-1) and COULD NOT figure out why you changed it like that. That's actually exactly what you want. Since f(x)=y, g(y)=x. So rewrite it as (g(t)-g(y))/(t-y). Sorry again.
 
  • #10
I would think using the chain rule on f(g(x))= x would be simplest.
 
  • #11
We need to prove that the inverse of f is differentiable first.
 
  • #12
Dick said:
Apologies for the tone of my previous post. I had forgotten you defined g=f^(-1) and COULD NOT figure out why you changed it like that. That's actually exactly what you want. Since f(x)=y, g(y)=x. So rewrite it as (g(t)-g(y))/(t-y). Sorry again.

Well, I wrote it as (g(t)-g(y))/(t-y) at first but then I rewrote it as (g(t)-x)/(t-f(x)). I still have to prove the two limits above are equal.
 
  • #13
ehrenfest said:
Well, I wrote it as (g(t)-g(y))/(t-y) at first but then I rewrote it as (g(t)-x)/(t-f(x)). I still have to prove the two limits above are equal.

You still don't see it? Why not pick t=f(s), s=g(t)? Then the two sides ARE equal, even before the limits are taken.
 
  • #14
Dick said:
You still don't see it? Why not pick t=f(s), s=g(t)? Then the two sides ARE equal, even before the limits are taken.

Sorry, I still do not see it. What do you mean pick t=f(s)? t and s are totally independent symbols. How does that even prove that

[tex]\lim_{t\to y}\frac{g(t) - g(y)}{t-y}[/tex]

even exists? For each \epsilon > 0, we need to find [itex]\delta>0[/itex] so that [itex]|t-y|<\delta[/itex] implies

[tex]\left|\frac{g(t) - g(y)}{t-y} - \lim_{s\to x} \frac{s-x}{f(s)-f(x)}\right|<\epsilon[/tex]What is really hard is that limit inside the limit thing.

I don't see why the "two sides being equal before taking the limit" is a meaningful statement. Are they supposed to "stay" equal as you take the limit? What in the world does that mean?
 
Last edited:
  • #15
You are complicating this to death. DON'T consider t and s totally independent symbols. DO take t=f(s). NOW the two sides are equal. NOW take the limit s->x. The right side is a difference quotient and converges to 1/f'(x). The left side is a difference quotient for g'(y). What else is there to say?
 
  • #16
OK. I agree that

[tex]\lim_{s\to x} \frac{g(f(s))-g(y)}{f(s)-y} = \frac{1}{f'(x)}[/tex]

But the heart of the problem is proving the left hand side is equal to

[tex]\lim_{t \to y} \frac{g(t)-g(y)}{t-y}[/tex]

Hmm. Maybe that is not so hard actually. By Theorem 4.2 in Rudin we just need to prove for every sequence converging to y, the difference quotient above converges to 1/f'(x). But if you give me a sequence {t_n} converging to y, I can find a sequence {s_n} converging to x such that f(s_n) = t_n so...yes that works. The reason {s_n=g(t_n)} converges to x is that by g is continuous (Rudin Thm 4.17).
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Yes! All of the functions here are continuous.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K