Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Does this imply that lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0?
Replies: 18   Last Post: May 26, 2013 1:28 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Bart Goddard

Posts: 1,565
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Does this imply that lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0?
Posted: May 23, 2013 2:55 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

steinerartur@gmail.com wrote in
news:287a9b10-3790-4437-aa0a-39f1e0d3cca3@googlegroups.com:

> Suppose f:[0, oo) --> R is increasing, differentiable and has a finite
> limit as x --> oo. Then, must we have lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0? I guess
> not, but couldn't find a counter example.
>
> Thank you


Something like f(x) = sum_1^infinity arctan(2^n ( x-2^n) )/2^n should

work. f'(x) is a sum of terms like 1/(1 + (2^n x -2^(2n))^2.
f'(2^n)=1 plus some small positive terms. But f'(2^n+2^(n-1)) should
be pretty close to zero.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.