Proving Non-Differentiability of a Function at a Specific Point

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving the non-differentiability of a specific function defined by an integral involving a floor function. Participants explore the behavior of the function at points of the form \( x = 2^{-i} k \) where \( k \) is a natural number, focusing on the calculation of left and right derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the function and attempts to calculate the right derivative, arriving at the value \( (-1)^{k} \).
  • The same participant formulates the left-hand derivative using a limit involving the integral, but expresses uncertainty about evaluating \( \lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor \) in the context of the integral limits.
  • Another participant suggests a generalized form of the first fundamental theorem of calculus, indicating that the right and left derivatives can be expressed in terms of limits of the function being integrated.
  • A question is raised regarding the type of integral being used in the original post, indicating a need for clarification.
  • A later reply recommends showing that the limits of the derivatives from either side are unequal to demonstrate non-existence of the derivative at the specified point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express different approaches to the problem, with no consensus on the method of proving non-differentiability or the evaluation of the integrals involved. The discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the behavior of the floor function within the integral, and the participants have not reached a resolution on the mathematical steps required to prove non-differentiability.

Tahoe
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello!

I got the following function:

[itex]\int_{0}^{x} \left(-1 \right)^{\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor} \ dt, \quad x \in \left[0,1 \right][/itex]

I want to show it is not differentiable at [itex]x= 2^{-i} k[/itex] where k is a natural number greater equal 0.

I already calculated the right derivate by considering those x with [itex]2^{-i}k \leq x < 2^{-i}k + 2^{-i}[/itex]. What I got was [itex](-1)^{k}[/itex].

Now when it comes to the left hand derivate I have the following:
[itex]\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 2^{-i}k} \frac{\int_{0}^{x} \left(-1 \right)^{\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor} \ dt - \int_{0}^{2^{-i}k} \left(-1 \right)^{\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor} \ dt}{x - 2^{-i}k}[/itex]

But since I consider those x approaching from the left side [itex]x \leq 2^{-i} k[/itex] and [itex]x \geq 0[/itex].
That is why the above integral will be
[itex]\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 2^{-i}k} \frac{\int_{0}^{x} \left(-1 \right)^{\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor} \ dt - \int_{0}^{2^{-i}k} \left(-1 \right)^{\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor} \ dt}{x - 2^{-i}k} = \lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 2^{-i}k} \frac{\int_{x}^{2^{-i}k} \left(-1 \right)^{\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor} \ dt }{x - 2^{-i}k}[/itex]

I know that for the last integral [itex]x \leq t \leq 2^{-i}k[/itex] which is equivalent to [itex]2^{i}x \leq 2^{i}t \leq k[/itex].
But that doesn´t help me when it comes to calculating [itex]\lfloor 2^{i} \cdot t \rfloor[/itex]

How can I proceed from there or is there any mistake in my way of thinking I don´t see at this moment?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello!

Don´t want to bother but does anybody has an idea how to proceed with the given problem? It makes me crazy not solving it right now. Thank you for any help.
 
I'm not sure, just an idea: I think one can prove a generalized form of the first fundamental theorem of calculus that is, if [itex]F(x)=\int_{a}^{x}f(t)dt[/itex] then for some conditions on f, we have [tex]F'_+(x_0)=\lim_{c\rightarrow x_0+}f(c)[/tex] and [tex]F'_-(x_0)=\lim_{c\rightarrow x_0-}f(c)[/tex]

Where [itex]F'_+(x_0)[/itex] and [itex]F'_-(x_0)[/itex] represent right and left derivatives at x0, respectively. [itex]\lim_{c\rightarrow x_0+}[/itex] and [itex]\lim_{c\rightarrow x_0-}[/itex] represent right sided and left sided limits at x0, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Which type of integral is implied in your o.p.?
 
Hey Tahoe and welcome to the forums.

I would recommend the same approach as asmani gave above. If you show that the appropriate limits on either side of the point are unequal, then you have showed that the derivative does not exist at that point.

(When I mean limits, I mean them in the context of the derivative as you would see in first principles).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K