Prove that the following function is infinitely differentiable:
Thank you!
It is important to define exactly the concepts of 'derivative' and 'differenziable funtion'. The derivative of a functionin
is the limit [if a limit exists]...
(1)
A functionis differentiable in
if we can write...
(2)
... whereis independent from
and
. Now we consider the function...
(3)
... in. On the basis of the (1) the derivative in
exists and is
but the function isn't differentiable in
because we are not able to write a relation like (2)...
Kind regards
![]()
![]()
Are you sure?
Quoted from wiki: "In calculus (a branch of mathematics), a differentiable function is a function whose derivative exists at each point in its domain."
See Differentiable function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Im my opinion the 'key' of the question is that the fact that the derivative of a functionexists in
doesn't mean that
is differentiable in
. Wiki as other people may have a different opinion but in that case they have to justify the fact that a function like...
(1)
... has the derivatives of all order inand therefore its Taylor expansion around
doesn't exist. In fact such Taylor expansion exists only if
is differentiable in
and that is not the situation...
Kind regards
![]()
![]()
A confirm of what i posted is in...
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~fspinu/405/...20notation.pdf
2.4 The following statement are true…
a) f is differentiable at a
b) there exist a real number such that![]()
Kind regards
![]()
![]()
How? I haven't the slightest idea what either of you are talking about.
To say thatis differentiable on
is to say that
exists for all
. Thus, one can show that this is true for this function. Moreover, it is infinitely differentiable if it has dervatives of all orders, i.e. if
exists for all
and all
. I showed that. Only after I proved it was differentiable did I make a REMARK about analyticity.
chisigma, I totally fail to understand what you are getting at here. For a start, the statements "the derivative of the functionexists at
" and "
is differentiable at
" mean exactly the same thing. Secondly, the function f defined by
is infinitely differentiable (equivalently, it has derivatives of all orders) at every pointincluding
. At
, every derivative is equal to 0. That does not mean that the Taylor expansion around
doesn't exist. The Taylor expansion around
does exist, but it is identically zero.
Honestly for me is a little hard to undestand how is possible that this function...
(1)
... that has all its derivatives equal to zero in, can be computed 'somewhere around'
with the Taylor expansion...
(2)
If all theare equal to 0 , it is evident that the (2) gives 0 no matter which is x... but y(x) is not equal to the 'nul function'... It seems to me that the situation is 'a little unconfortable'...
Kind regards
![]()
![]()