Could use some help with a proof

  • Thread starter csprof2000
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary: Additionally, on the interval (0,1), the function is equal to 0, making it constant on a closed interval. However, outside of this interval, the function is not constant, satisfying the conditions stated in the conversation.
  • #1
csprof2000
287
0
Hello,

I've been wondering about something for a while now. As a computer scientist, I never had much in the way of analysis or advanced calculus, but there is something I have always assumed was true but have never been able to prove.

Say that you have a function f : R -> R which is infinitely differentiable (and continuous). The derivatives may eventually equal zero, but they must also be infinitely differentiable (and continuous) according to this same definition.

Further, assume that on some finite closed interval [a, b] the function is constant; that is, for any x in [a, b], f(x) = c for some finite value of c (with c constant).

Is it true that f(x) = c for all x in R?

Also, as a computer scientist, if the bottom line does not follow, I would definitely like an example of a function satisfying my requirements but which is not constant. No ad absurdum proofs, please. Thanks in advance for any help I may get in this matter.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Umm...

"infinitely differentiable (and continuous)"

The heaviside function is not differentiable at x = 0, last time I checked. Nor is it continuous there.
 
  • #3
csprof2000 said:
Umm...

"infinitely differentiable (and continuous)"

The heaviside function is not differentiable at x = 0, last time I checked. Nor is it continuous there.
I know, I missed that part of your post (which is why I deleted it just before you replied) :rolleyes:
 
  • #4
lol. I reread my post to make sure I said that. I agree the problem would have been a little flippant if I hadn't specified that. ;D

Thanks for your interest, though. It seems obvious to me, but is it so obvious? If it were so obvious, you'd think I'd have a proof by now...
 
  • #5
Perhaps I misinterpretted - or misunderstand - your post but wouldn't the piecewise funcion:

c, a < x < b
f = (x - a)^2 + c, x < a
(x - b)^2 + c, x > b

satisfy the conditions? f(x) = c in some finite interval [a,b], is continuous for all values x, and I think is differentiable; moreover f(x) =/ c for all values x.
 
  • #6
Well, the problem is that the second derivative,


f ' ' (x) = {2, x < a} or {0, a < x < b} or {2, b < x}

Therefore, the second derivative is neither continuous nor differentiable for x = a or x = b, which I require.
 
  • #8
Oh, wow. Well, I suppose that does it. Clever...

Thanks, Moo of Doom, for showing me that... it's a perfect counterexample. Thanks!
 
  • #9
Arby, I'd take a look at Moo of Doom's link. Taylor's theorem only applies to analytic functions, I believe. I already knew it was true for analytic functions, but... I thought it may have been true more generally.

Thanks for your help, everybody.
 
  • #10
Sorry didn't see it before I blinked, then I deleted it, thanks.
 
  • #11
What about a piecewise defined function:

f(x) =

(x+1)^2 for -inf < x < -1
0 for -1 <= x <= 1
(x-1)^2 for 1 < x < +inf


this is continuous and analytic and all those nice things isn't it?

Edit:
Whoops I'm not doing very well today. 2nd deriv problems...
 
Last edited:
  • #12
The function defined by
[tex]f(x)= e^{-1/x^2}[/tex] for x< 0
[tex] f(x)= 0[/tex] for [itex]0\le x\le 1[/itex]
[tex] f(x)= e^{-1/(x-1)^2}[/itex] for x> 1
is, I believe, infinitely differentiable for all x.
 

FAQ: Could use some help with a proof

How do I begin a proof?

To start a proof, first identify the statement or theorem you are trying to prove. Then, write down any given information or assumptions that you can use in your proof. Next, decide on a logical or mathematical approach to prove the statement. Finally, carefully write out each step of your proof, making sure to clearly explain your reasoning.

What is the difference between a direct proof and an indirect proof?

In a direct proof, you start with the given information or assumptions and logically show how they lead to the conclusion you are trying to prove. In an indirect proof, also known as a proof by contradiction, you assume the opposite of what you are trying to prove and show that it leads to a contradiction. This proves that the original statement must be true.

How do I know if my proof is correct?

A proof is considered correct if it follows a logical and mathematical approach, uses valid reasoning, and leads to a valid conclusion. To ensure the accuracy of your proof, it is always a good idea to double check each step and make sure it logically connects to the previous step.

What should I do if I get stuck in a proof?

If you are having trouble with a specific step in your proof, try looking for alternative approaches or considering different ways to use the given information. It can also be helpful to take a break and come back to the proof with a fresh perspective. If you are still stuck, consider reaching out to a colleague or professor for assistance.

How can I improve my proof writing skills?

One of the best ways to improve your proof writing skills is to practice regularly. Additionally, read and analyze well-written proofs to understand the logical and mathematical techniques used. It can also be helpful to seek feedback from others and incorporate their suggestions into your writing. Finally, stay organized and clearly explain each step of your proof to ensure clarity and accuracy.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
772
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top