thanks ?

Printable View

- December 14th 2006, 11:07 PMsbsitehelp with some problems?
thanks ?

- December 15th 2006, 08:58 AMThePerfectHacker
We need to find the limits,

We can write,

Multiply by "x" (positive or negative equality is preseved),

.

This inequality is true at some open interval containing zero except possibly at zero itself. Thus, by the squeeze theorem,

.

Thus, the limit of that is also zero.

That means the function is continous.

Similarly,

Thus, it is continous. - December 15th 2006, 09:06 AMThePerfectHacker
Now we need to determine the derivative of at .

The derivative (if it exists) for is given by,

Which is equivalent to after simplification,

.

This is a famous limits, which does not exist.

However, if we used the second function after some manipulation, we would eventually reach after doing the same steps above,

By using the Squeeze theorem trick employed before.

Thus, is not differenciable at . While is differenciable at . That immediatly answers the (c) the first function's derivative is not defined at the point, thus it is not continous there. - December 15th 2006, 09:11 AMThePerfectHacker
The only thing remains is to show that the derivative of is continous at .

If then the derivative of exists and is,

.

I do not think the limit exists. Because the first summand exists (by squeeze theorem) but the second one does not.

Thus, the derivative is not continous. - December 15th 2006, 01:47 PMCaptainBlack

This is a well known function which has the curious property that all its

derivatives at are . Showing this depends on showing that:

for all , which I will leave as an excercise to the reader,

it can be shown by repeated application of L'Hopital's rule. Alternativly you may

be in the position of knowing that decreases faster than any power of

, which is also sufficient to justify the above limit.

and:

Put , then:

The second derivative is similar, but a bit more fiddly.

RonL - December 15th 2006, 02:03 PMCaptainBlack
- December 16th 2006, 02:54 AMSoroban
Hello, sbsite!

Here's #11 . . . but check my work,*please.*

Quote:

11) Find for: .

Take logs: .

Differentiate implicitly:

. .

We have: .

When

Hence: .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .