![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Apr 2010
17 Posts |
![]()
Let f:R->R is a function which its second derivative f'' is continuous function.
Prove that if lim(x->infinity) (f(x)+ f '(x) + f ''(x))=L then lim(x->infinity) f(x)=L. L is in R*. Note: this exercise is not like a usually exercise for home, is like a challenge exercise and is very hard. If anyone can think anything that would help me just write it down.I will appreciate any kind of help. if you want you can ask me and i will post my thoughts about this exercise(how we can try to solve it). please write back if anything is not clear or if you want to ask about something. thank you. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
165228 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Start with the following. Suppose lim x-->oo f(x) = L. What does this say about lim x-->oo f'(x)??? can lim x-->oo f'(x) = M, M !=0 and still have lim x-->oo f(x) = L?? i.e. if the slope isn't 0 as x-->oo what happens to f(x)? Similarly if f' -->0 as x-->oo, what can we say about f''?? i.e. start by looking at the converse of the problem. Then consider the following. if lim x-->oo f + f' --> (say) K, what can we say about f and f' individually? BTW, I recall seeing this exercize in my undergrad days. It may be in Rudin, IIRC. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2·33·139 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Further hint (I omit the lim x-->oo in my notation) if (f + f') --> L, and f --> M, then f' --> L-M. but if f' --> L-M, what happens to f? If f is not bounded, then f must go to oo and f' must go to -oo. Can this happen???? [clearly if both go to oo, then their sum does as well, and if one is bounded and the other is not then their sum is again unbounded]. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
"Tapio Rajala"
Feb 2010
Finland
13B16 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() The reason I replied is because I do not see how Silverman's hints might help in solving the problem. I might just be to sleepy to notice it. Here a small observation those hints alarmed me to point out. One can not a priori assume the limits in a same way - a claim which is trivially false. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Apr 2010
17 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Thanks for your hints..you are just very near my thoughts..actually I am trying to prove the following: if a function g has continuous derivative g' and lim(x-->oo)g(x) is in R then lim(x-->oo)g'(x)=0. I am quite sure that this statement is true( i hope so)..i couldn't find a counter example so at this moment i am trying to prove it..if i manage or anyone else from this forum manage to prove that lemma(it shouldn't be very difficult i believe) then our problem would take easier form, because if we assume that lim f(x) exists and is in R then from the lemma lim f'(x)=0 and hence lim f''(x)=0 so is true. So it would remain to prove the problem by contradiction assuming that lim f(x) doesn't exist. I wait for your replies or any other thoughts..thanks |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
"Tapio Rajala"
Feb 2010
Finland
32×5×7 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Apr 2010
17 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() I will come back with something new.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Apr 2010
17 Posts |
![]()
I am just trying to figure out. if the condition from the problem holds with L in R, then it has to be limf '(x)=limf ''(x)=0??..can anybody find an example such that limf '(x)= - limf ''(x)<>0 or
such that lim f '(x) and lim f ''(x) don't exist but does exist (lim f '(x) + lim f''(x)) and that is 0?? if nobody will find such an example i will begin trying to prove that limf '(x)=limf ''(x)=0..i wait for reply Last fiddled with by kakos22 on 2010-04-10 at 13:28 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston
2·33·139 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Apr 2010
17 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Apr 2010
1710 Posts |
![]()
I am just trying to prove the following lemma:
Let function g has continuous derivative g' and lim x->oo g(x) exists and is in R. Then lim x->oo g '(x) doesn't exist or exists and is 0. I think that this time the lemma is true.If that so then the beginning problem will be easier. if anybody could found a counter example or something to help me with that i will appreciate it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Extremely lucky assignments | apocalypse | GPU to 72 | 6 | 2015-04-07 04:41 |
Extremely basic questions | schwerlin | Information & Answers | 6 | 2015-01-20 19:26 |
Extremely non-smooth Factor of M61^120-1 | kosta | Factoring | 10 | 2013-03-29 14:23 |
Calculating a difficult sum | CRGreathouse | Math | 3 | 2009-08-25 14:11 |
extremely large numbers | TimSorbet | Programming | 10 | 2008-07-31 17:04 |