The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

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: 3   Last Post: May 24, 2013 1:34 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
James Waldby

Posts: 545
Registered: 1/27/11
Re: Does this imply that lim x --> oo f'(x) = 0?
Posted: May 23, 2013 5:09 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:55:08 +0000, Bart Goddard wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

As another example, f(x) = ln(x)*sin(x*x)/x goes to zero and
d(f(x))/dx goes to +/-oo as x goes to +oo, since it is dominated
by ln(x)*cos(x*x).

shows a graph for small x of d(f(x))/dx = d/dx((log(x) sin(x x))/x)
= (2 x^2 log(x) cos(x^2)-(log(x)-1) sin(x^2))/x^2.


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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

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