### Author Topic: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions  (Read 8448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« on: May 01, 2007, 12:27:53 AM »
See here for an introduction. It is a guide as to the prerequisite knowledge that you need, but if you feel comfortable with single variable calculus you should be fine.

This question is easier than the question in the above link.

Let f be a continuous function on the reals.  Suppose that f'(x) exists whenever x doesn't equal 0, and

Does it follow that f'(0) exists?

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2007, 01:06:23 PM »
Do people want hints or something?  These problems aren't that hard and I thought they were fun in the sense that they pull a lot of basic calculus together to prove things that have some useful meaning.  If you post something that's wrong or only partly right, I'm not going to change my view of your intelligence and then be like "5/10, and ps.you're an idiot".

#### Sidoh

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 17668
• MHNATY ~~~~~
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2007, 01:41:30 PM »
If you post something that's wrong or only partly right, I'm not going to change my view of your intelligence and then be like "5/10, and ps.you're an idiot".

lmao.

These are interesting problems, Rule, and I'd love to work on them.  However, this is the last week of classes with finals next week, so I'm pretty busy.  I know the answers are probably pretty easy to get to if you're clever, but I really don't have the time right now.  Will you still be willing to run this in a week an a half?

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2007, 02:12:56 PM »
Ah, makes sense.  I have just finished my work for the year and have about a week off, so absent-mindedly assumed everyone else was in the same position.

And of course, we can run this indefinitely.

#### Sidoh

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 17668
• MHNATY ~~~~~
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2007, 04:10:27 PM »
Excellent.

Have a good week off.

#### Newby

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 10880
• Thrash!
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2007, 06:10:02 PM »
Ah, makes sense.  I have just finished my work for the year and have about a week off, so absent-mindedly assumed everyone else was in the same position.

Yeah. I've got a literary criticism paper due Friday, (into next week now) a book talk (synthesizing the information from a book with Vietnam) Monday, AP Spanish test Tuesday, AP Calc BC test Wednesday (!!!), AP US History test Friday.
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT.

#### Warrior

• supreme mac daddy of trolls
• Hero Member
• Posts: 7507
• One for a Dime two for a Quarter!
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2007, 06:52:29 PM »
5.

Give me something harder next time.
One must ask oneself: "do I will trolling to become a universal law?" And then when one realizes "yes, I do will it to be such," one feels completely justified.
-- from Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Trolling

#### Ender

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2398
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2007, 04:34:18 AM »
I'm currently very busy but I definitely plan to pour some energy into these questions later in the week.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I'm really very happy about you posting all these problems ^_^
« Last Edit: May 06, 2007, 04:39:22 PM by Ender »

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2007, 05:24:51 PM »
No problem, I like working through problems like this.  I've written a bunch more, but lets see what comes of these first.

#### d&q

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1429
• I'm here.
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2007, 08:58:05 PM »
The writ of the founders must endure.

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2007, 08:19:18 PM »
In 1 week I will post this problem on Yoni's forum.  When he posts a solution, I will link it, or I will post a solution myself in 2 weeks, whichever is faster.

#### Ender

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2398
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2007, 09:47:53 PM »
Yes, it does follow that f'(0) exists.

Hmm, you never said whether this has to be proven or just shown, so my explanation will not be all that rigorous.

Basically, as f is continuous on all the reals, its derivative cannot have any removable discontinuities, i.e. discontinuities where the lefthand and righthand limits agree as x->c but f(c) does not exist. This is because all removable discontinuities are removed in the limit.

To clarify this point, consider

If the lefthand limit agrees with the righthand limit, and f and g are both continuous, then the limit is defined as a number.

Making use of this point, for f'(0) not to exist, there must be a removable discontinuity at x = 0, yet we know there cannot be, since all removable discontinuities are removed in the process of differentiation, i.e.

Thus f'(0) exists.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2007, 10:02:45 PM by Ender »

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2007, 04:00:06 AM »
Your instinct is right, but |x| appears to be a counterexample to what you are saying.  Although maybe not, depending on if you mean something other than the lim x--> c, f/g clarification with this:
This is because all removable discontinuities are removed in the limit.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 04:03:26 AM by Rule »

#### Ender

• Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2398
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2007, 12:04:15 PM »
Your instinct is right, but |x| appears to be a counterexample to what you are saying.  Although maybe not, depending on if you mean something other than the lim x--> c, f/g clarification with this:
This is because all removable discontinuities are removed in the limit.

|x| has a jump discontinuity, and so the lefthand limts and righthands limits don't agree. lim x -> c f(x) / g(x) where the lefthand and righthand limits agree but f(c) / g(c) is undefined is just a poor representation of a removable discontinuity.

Yeah, basically what I meant was that all removable discontinuities are removed in the limit included in the differentiation process.

#### Rule

• x86
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1588
##### Re: Question 3 in Calculus Proof Questions
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2007, 12:30:21 PM »
Your instinct is right, but |x| appears to be a counterexample to what you are saying.  Although maybe not, depending on if you mean something other than the lim x--> c, f/g clarification with this:
This is because all removable discontinuities are removed in the limit.

|x| has a jump discontinuity, and so the lefthand limts and righthands limits don't agree. lim x -> c f(x) / g(x) where the lefthand and righthand limits agree but f(c) / g(c) is undefined is just a poor representation of a removable discontinuity.

Yeah, basically what I meant was that all removable discontinuities are removed in the limit included in the differentiation process.

Supposing that the derivative of a continuous function has no removable discontinuities doesn't rule out |x| as a counterexample.  Of course |x| doesn't show that f'(0) doesn't have to exist, as it says in the question that lim x--> 0 f'(x) exists.  I think I see what you're saying, but it's not totally convincing .

For example,
Basically, as f is continuous on all the reals, its derivative cannot have any removable discontinuities
does not rule out other cases where f'(0) might not exist.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2007, 12:49:22 PM by Rule »