I Result regarding signs and a limit

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
Suppose that ##f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}## is differentiable at ##a\in\mathbb{R}##. Is it true that if ##\lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}>0## and ##x>a## then ##f(x)>f(a)##? I'm trying to find a counterexample to show that its false because I think it is, but I'm having a hard tome doing that for some reason. The reason I am asking is because it was used in someone's proof with no justification, but I think it's wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
Suppose that ##f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}## is differentiable at ##a\in\mathbb{R}##. Is it true that if ##\lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}>0## and ##x>a## then ##f(x)>f(a)##? I'm trying to find a counterexample to show that its false because I think it is, but I'm having a hard tome doing that for some reason. The reason I am asking is because it was used in someone's proof with no justification, but I think it's wrong.
Why do you think it's wrong? Say we have ##L := \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}>0\,.## Then for sufficiently close values ##x## to ##a##, we have ##0 < L - \frac{L}{3} < \frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} < L + \frac{L}{3}##.
 
  • Like
Likes Mr Davis 97
fresh_42 said:
Why do you think it's wrong? Say we have ##L := \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}>0\,.## Then for sufficiently close values ##x## to ##a##, we have ##0 < L - \frac{L}{3} < \frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} < L + \frac{L}{3}##.
Okay, I think I see. But is this result obvious enough just to claim that since ##\lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}>0## and ##x>a## implies ##f(x)>f(a)## without further comment on why exactly this implication is true? Is it something that should be proved in a lemma or is it just an obvious result?
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
Okay, I think I see. But is this result obvious enough just to claim that since ##\lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}>0## and ##x>a## implies ##f(x)>f(a)## without further comment on why exactly this implication is true? Is it something that should be proved in a lemma or is it just an obvious result?
I found it obvious as I thought about it this way: In order for the nominator to be negative, the entire quotient would have to be negative. But as we approach a strictly positive number, we will sooner or later have to leave the range of negativity: we cannot wait until the very last moment and all of a sudden jump onto a positive limit - at least not with a continuous function, which it is, as it's differentiable there.
 
  • Like
Likes Mr Davis 97
Back
Top