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

  • Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date
In summary: 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 even exists? For each \epsilon > 0, we need to find \delta>0 so that |t-y|<\delta implies
  • #1
ehrenfest
2,020
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
  • #2
You've proved f is strictly increasing. f is continuous since f' exists, yes? And you can't prove the inverse exists?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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:
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
[tex]
\lim_{t\to y}\frac{g(t) - x}{t-f(x)} = \lim_{s\to x} \frac{s-x}{f(s)-f(x)}
[/tex]
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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.
 

1. What is the purpose of proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2?

The purpose of proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2 is to show the relationship between the derivative of a composite function and the derivative of its individual components. This relationship is important in understanding and solving more complex problems in calculus.

2. What are the assumptions made in Rudin 5.2 for the proof of f'(x) & g'(f(x))?

The assumptions made in Rudin 5.2 are that f(x) and g(x) are both differentiable functions, and that g(f(x)) is also differentiable.

3. What are the steps involved in proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2?

The steps involved in proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2 are: 1) showing that the function g(f(x+h)) - g(f(x)) can be written as a sum of two terms, 2) applying the definition of the derivative to each term separately, 3) using algebraic manipulations to simplify the expression, and 4) taking the limit as h approaches 0 to show that the derivative of the composite function exists.

4. How does proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2 relate to the chain rule?

The proof of f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2 is essentially a simplified version of the chain rule. It shows that the derivative of a composite function is equal to the product of the derivatives of its individual components. This is a fundamental concept in the chain rule, which states that for a composite function f(g(x)), the derivative is equal to f'(g(x)) * g'(x).

5. Are there any real-world applications of proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2?

Yes, there are many real-world applications of proving f'(x) & g'(f(x)) in Rudin 5.2. This concept is used in various fields such as physics, engineering, and economics to model and solve problems involving complex systems and functions. It is also used in calculus-based optimization techniques to find the maximum or minimum values of a function.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
842
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
22
Views
347
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
987
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
546
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
596
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
751
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
505
Back
Top