Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    62

    Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

    Prove: if f(x) is differentiable on (a,\infty) and \lim_{x\to \infty} f'(x)=0, then \lim_{x\to \infty} \frac {1}{x}[f(2x)-f(x)]=0.

    How do I approach such an exercise? Any ideas would be appreciated.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Newbie
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    From
    Sweden
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    1

    Re: Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

    You know that for any \epsilon > 0 you can find an x so that x>N \Rightarrow |f'(x)| < \epsilon. In particular, this says that for any \epsilon > 0 you can find an x so that |f'(2x)-f(x)| < \epsilon x. Can you see why that is? Can you then conclude anything about your limit?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    62

    Re: Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

    Quote Originally Posted by thesmurfmaster View Post
    In particular, this says that for any \epsilon > 0 you can find an x so that |f'(2x)-f(x)| < \epsilon x. Can you see why that is?
    No I can't see that. Can you please explain why?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    From
    Sweden
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    1

    Re: Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

    Let's say that |f'(x)| < \epsilon for all x>N (we know by definition that we can find such an N for each \epsilon). From f(x) to f(2x) we're changing the input by x (2x-x=x). Since the absolute value of the derivative is always less than epsilon in this interval, we can definately not move further from f(x) than x * \epsilon when we move x units ahead. Therefore |f(x) - f(2x)| < x*\epsilon.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    From
    Sweden
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    1

    Re: Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

    Let's say that |f'(x)| < \epsilon for all x>N (we know by definition that we can find such an N for each \epsilon). From f(x) to f(2x) we're changing the input by x (2x-x=x). Since the absolute value of the derivative is always less than epsilon in this interval, we can definately not move further from f(x) than x * \epsilon when we move x units ahead. Therefore |f(x) - f(2x)| < x*\epsilon.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    62

    Re: Fermat, Rolle and Lagrange

    Quote Originally Posted by thesmurfmaster View Post
    Since the absolute value of the derivative is always less than epsilon in this interval, we can definately not move further from f(x) than x * \epsilon when we move x units ahead.
    Why? How does the former lead to the latter? I'm sorry if this looks trivial for anyone, but it simply doesn't look so for me... Can you perhaps explain this in a different matter? Thanks again
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Rolle's Theorm example
    Posted in the Advanced Applied Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 22nd 2011, 09:45 PM
  2. Thank you! (Rolle's Theorem)
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 16th 2010, 02:53 AM
  3. Rolle's and Lagrange
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 11th 2009, 04:48 AM
  4. Rolle's Thm and the mean value thm
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 29th 2008, 04:27 PM
  5. Rolle's theorem
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 27th 2008, 06:34 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum