Date: May 26, 2013 1:28 AM
Author: Bacle H
Subject: Re: Does this imply that lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0?

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:25:30 PM UTC-7, bacle...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:28:07 PM UTC-7, Graham Cooper wrote:
>

> > On May 25, 12:50 pm, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Fri, 24 May 2013, baclesb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Friday, May 24, 2013 3:28:09 AM UTC-4, William Elliot 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.
>
> >
>
> > > >  How about this: with the same lay out as before: f(n+1)-f(n)=f'(cn).
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Give it up, counter examples have been presented.
>
>
>
> Maybe you should check your counterexamples more carefully.


Morover, you told me you did not see where monotonicity was used, and

I showed you where, or that I produce an argument where monotonicity

was used, and this is what I did. So don't ask me for something and then

complain when I answer your question.


>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think this one works..
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -1/(5+sin(x))/x/x
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-1%2F%285%2Bsin%28x%29%29%2Fx%2Fx
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Herc
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > www.BLoCKPROLOG.com