Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Bart Goddard Posts: 1,706 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Does this imply that lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0?
Posted: May 23, 2013 2:55 PM
 Plain Text 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.

Date Subject Author
5/23/13 steinerartur@gmail.com
5/23/13 Robin Chapman
5/23/13 David C. Ullrich
5/23/13 Bart Goddard
5/23/13 steinerartur@gmail.com
5/23/13 William Elliot
5/24/13 steinerartur@gmail.com
5/24/13 Bacle H
5/24/13 William Elliot
5/24/13 Bacle H
5/24/13 William Elliot
5/24/13 Graham Cooper
5/24/13 Graham Cooper
5/25/13 steinerartur@gmail.com
5/25/13 Graham Cooper
5/26/13 Bacle H
5/26/13 Bacle H
5/24/13 William Elliot
5/24/13 Graham Cooper

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.