How can we prove f(x) approaches 0 as x approaches infinity in this scenario?

  • Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the proof that f(x)->0 when x->infinity is proved using the mean value theorem and the cauchy criterion.
  • #1
MathematicalPhysicist
Gold Member
4,699
373
let f(x) be continuously differentiable in [0,infinity) such that the derivative f'(x) is bounded. suppose that the integral [tex]\int_{a}^{\infty}|f(x)|dx[/tex] converges. prove that f(x)->0 when x->infinity.


now, here's what i did:
f'(x) is bounded then for every x>=0 |f'(x)|<=M for some M>0.
now bacause the integral [tex]\int_{a}^{\infty}|f(x)|dx[/tex] converges for some a>0, then by cauchy criterion we have that for every e>0 there exists B such that for every b1>b2>B>0 [tex] \int_{b2}^{b1}|f(x)|dx<e[/tex] now we can use the inequality: [tex] |\int_{b2}^{b1}f(x)dx|<=\int_{b2}^{b1}|f(x)|dx<e[/tex].
now, the crucial point here is that i need to show that for every e>0 there exists M'>0 such that for every x>M' |f(x)|<e.
now i think i can use the mean value theorem for integral here, so there exists a point x in (b2,b1) such that [tex]\int_{b2}^{b1}f(t)dt=f(x)(b1-b2)[/tex] and then we have that for every x greater than B
|f(x)|(b1-b2)<e so |f(x)|<e/(b1-b2) but this doesn't work cause b1 and b2 aren't constants, so perhaps here i should use that the derivative is bounded, so by lagrange theorem we have that: |f(b1)-f(b2)|<=M(b1-b2) but still i don't see how to connect both of these theorems to prove this statement.
any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If the derivative is bounded, it means the function can't changes that quickly near a local max. So you can give a lower bound for the integral over a region in terms of the sup of f(x) in that region.
 
  • #3
how does a lower bound will help me here?
i think i need to prove it by epsilon delta, unless there's another way?
 
  • #4
Trust me, you want a lower bound. It will help you show that if the integral of |f(x)| is small enough, then sup{|f(x)|} must be small too.
 
  • #5
ah, ok i understand.
but still i don't see how to use here the boudedness of the derivative, i mean: |f'(x)|<=M for some M>0, so bacause f(x) is continuous it is bounded so if sup(f(x))=max(f(x) in some closed interval, what to do from here?
 
  • #6
The idea is that the function can only fall from its max so quickly. Find the function that does this the fastest, and you know the actual function is at least as big.
 
  • #7
sorry but i don't see how to implement it here, i mean if we have a closed interval then sup=max in this interval and the function is not greater than this value for every x in the interval now if i were to use the boudedness, i would get by the mvt that |f(b1)-f(b2)|<=M(b1-b2) but f(x)<=max(f(x))
|f(x)|<=|f(x)-f(b2)|+|f(b2)-f(b1)|+|f(b1)|<=M(x-b2)+M(b1-b2)+max(f(x)) but still stuck.
 

FAQ: How can we prove f(x) approaches 0 as x approaches infinity in this scenario?

What is a proof problem?

A proof problem is a mathematical or logical statement that requires a logical argument to prove its truth or validity. It is a common type of problem in fields such as mathematics, computer science, and philosophy.

How do you approach a proof problem?

To approach a proof problem, it is important to carefully read and understand the problem statement. Then, one should analyze the given information and try to identify any patterns or relationships that may exist. From there, a clear and logical argument should be constructed to prove the statement.

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

A direct proof is a type of proof in which the statement to be proven is directly proven using logical steps and the given information. On the other hand, an indirect proof, also known as a proof by contradiction, is a proof technique where one assumes the statement is false and shows that this assumption leads to a contradiction, proving the statement to be true.

How do you know when a proof is complete?

A proof is considered complete when it is logically sound and follows the rules of logic. This means that all steps must be clearly explained and justified, and the conclusion must be a valid consequence of the given information and logical steps.

Can a proof problem have multiple solutions?

Yes, a proof problem can have multiple solutions. In some cases, there may be different approaches or techniques that can be used to prove a statement, resulting in multiple solutions. However, all solutions must follow the rules of logic and be supported by clear and logical arguments.

Back
Top