|
|
Re: Does this imply that lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0?
Posted:
May 24, 2013 5:51 PM
|
|
On May 24, 5:42 pm, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, steinerar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> For x in [0,1], let f(x) = 0.
> For x in [n, n+1/2], let f(x) = 1 - 1/n.
>
> For x in [n+1/2, n+1],
> . . let f(x) = 1 - 1/n + (x - n + 1/2)(1/n - 1/(n+1)).
>
> To assure f' exists, round the corners at n, n + 1/2, for all n in N.
>
> To make f strictly increasing, slope slightly upwards the horizontal
> portion. gtest
>
OK, so you approach the limit in smaller and smaller bumps!
Another self-similar fractal coastline but increasing!
Any plot?
...
The un-differentiated fractal curve from above!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ln%28x%29*sin%28x*x%29%2Fx
Herc
|
|
