Proving differentiability of a piecewise function [closed]
Let $pinmathbb R$, and let $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ be defined by
$$begin{cases}x^p&xinmathbb Q\0&xinmathbb Rsetminusmathbb Qend{cases}$$
For what values of $p$ is $f$ differentiable at $0$?
Would this just be a direct proof of differentiability (i.e. using the limit definition of the derivative)? Don't really know how to go about proving this rigorously.
real-analysis
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL Nov 30 '18 at 14:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
Let $pinmathbb R$, and let $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ be defined by
$$begin{cases}x^p&xinmathbb Q\0&xinmathbb Rsetminusmathbb Qend{cases}$$
For what values of $p$ is $f$ differentiable at $0$?
Would this just be a direct proof of differentiability (i.e. using the limit definition of the derivative)? Don't really know how to go about proving this rigorously.
real-analysis
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL Nov 30 '18 at 14:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
What do you know about differentiability? Can you show us your work?
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Nov 30 '18 at 10:51
add a comment |
Let $pinmathbb R$, and let $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ be defined by
$$begin{cases}x^p&xinmathbb Q\0&xinmathbb Rsetminusmathbb Qend{cases}$$
For what values of $p$ is $f$ differentiable at $0$?
Would this just be a direct proof of differentiability (i.e. using the limit definition of the derivative)? Don't really know how to go about proving this rigorously.
real-analysis
Let $pinmathbb R$, and let $f:mathbb Rtomathbb R$ be defined by
$$begin{cases}x^p&xinmathbb Q\0&xinmathbb Rsetminusmathbb Qend{cases}$$
For what values of $p$ is $f$ differentiable at $0$?
Would this just be a direct proof of differentiability (i.e. using the limit definition of the derivative)? Don't really know how to go about proving this rigorously.
real-analysis
real-analysis
edited Nov 30 '18 at 11:22
Lorenzo B.
1,8402520
1,8402520
asked Nov 30 '18 at 10:49
NickNick
344
344
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL Nov 30 '18 at 14:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL Nov 30 '18 at 14:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會, Saad, Paul Frost, José Carlos Santos, RRL
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
What do you know about differentiability? Can you show us your work?
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Nov 30 '18 at 10:51
add a comment |
What do you know about differentiability? Can you show us your work?
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Nov 30 '18 at 10:51
What do you know about differentiability? Can you show us your work?
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Nov 30 '18 at 10:51
What do you know about differentiability? Can you show us your work?
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Nov 30 '18 at 10:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes, with the definition of the derivative:
Let $q(x):= frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}$ for $x ne 0$.
Then $q(x)=x^{p-1}$ if $x in mathbb Q$ and $q(x)=0$ if $x in mathbb R setminus mathbb Q$.
Case 1: $p=1$. Then $q(x)=1$ if $x in mathbb Q$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ does not exist ?
Case 2: $p>1$. Then we have $|q(x)| le |x|^{p-1}$ for all $x$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)=0$ ?
Case 3: $p<1$. It is now your turn to investigate the existence of $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ .
add a comment |
First you need continuity in $0$. If $p<0$ then the function is not continuous in zero since $$a_n={pi over n}\b_n={1over n}$$while both $a_n ,b_n$ tend to $0$ we have $$f(a_n)=0to 0\f(b_n)=({1over n})^{p}=n^{-p}to infty$$since $p<0$. Also $p=0$ is invalid since $f(a_n)=0$ and $f(b_n)=1$. Therefore we need $p>0$. After attaining this primary result, now we apply the definition of differentiability in $0$ for which$$f'(0)=lim_{xto 0} {f(x)over x}$$defining the same $a_n$ and $b_n$ we have $$f'(a_n)=0$$and $$f'(b_n)=lim_{xto 0}x^{p-1}=0$$which imposes that $p>1$ with the same argument. Therefore the final answer would be $p>1$.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, with the definition of the derivative:
Let $q(x):= frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}$ for $x ne 0$.
Then $q(x)=x^{p-1}$ if $x in mathbb Q$ and $q(x)=0$ if $x in mathbb R setminus mathbb Q$.
Case 1: $p=1$. Then $q(x)=1$ if $x in mathbb Q$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ does not exist ?
Case 2: $p>1$. Then we have $|q(x)| le |x|^{p-1}$ for all $x$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)=0$ ?
Case 3: $p<1$. It is now your turn to investigate the existence of $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ .
add a comment |
Yes, with the definition of the derivative:
Let $q(x):= frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}$ for $x ne 0$.
Then $q(x)=x^{p-1}$ if $x in mathbb Q$ and $q(x)=0$ if $x in mathbb R setminus mathbb Q$.
Case 1: $p=1$. Then $q(x)=1$ if $x in mathbb Q$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ does not exist ?
Case 2: $p>1$. Then we have $|q(x)| le |x|^{p-1}$ for all $x$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)=0$ ?
Case 3: $p<1$. It is now your turn to investigate the existence of $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ .
add a comment |
Yes, with the definition of the derivative:
Let $q(x):= frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}$ for $x ne 0$.
Then $q(x)=x^{p-1}$ if $x in mathbb Q$ and $q(x)=0$ if $x in mathbb R setminus mathbb Q$.
Case 1: $p=1$. Then $q(x)=1$ if $x in mathbb Q$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ does not exist ?
Case 2: $p>1$. Then we have $|q(x)| le |x|^{p-1}$ for all $x$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)=0$ ?
Case 3: $p<1$. It is now your turn to investigate the existence of $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ .
Yes, with the definition of the derivative:
Let $q(x):= frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}$ for $x ne 0$.
Then $q(x)=x^{p-1}$ if $x in mathbb Q$ and $q(x)=0$ if $x in mathbb R setminus mathbb Q$.
Case 1: $p=1$. Then $q(x)=1$ if $x in mathbb Q$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ does not exist ?
Case 2: $p>1$. Then we have $|q(x)| le |x|^{p-1}$ for all $x$. Can you see that $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)=0$ ?
Case 3: $p<1$. It is now your turn to investigate the existence of $ lim_{x to 0}q(x)$ .
answered Nov 30 '18 at 11:04
FredFred
44.3k1845
44.3k1845
add a comment |
add a comment |
First you need continuity in $0$. If $p<0$ then the function is not continuous in zero since $$a_n={pi over n}\b_n={1over n}$$while both $a_n ,b_n$ tend to $0$ we have $$f(a_n)=0to 0\f(b_n)=({1over n})^{p}=n^{-p}to infty$$since $p<0$. Also $p=0$ is invalid since $f(a_n)=0$ and $f(b_n)=1$. Therefore we need $p>0$. After attaining this primary result, now we apply the definition of differentiability in $0$ for which$$f'(0)=lim_{xto 0} {f(x)over x}$$defining the same $a_n$ and $b_n$ we have $$f'(a_n)=0$$and $$f'(b_n)=lim_{xto 0}x^{p-1}=0$$which imposes that $p>1$ with the same argument. Therefore the final answer would be $p>1$.
add a comment |
First you need continuity in $0$. If $p<0$ then the function is not continuous in zero since $$a_n={pi over n}\b_n={1over n}$$while both $a_n ,b_n$ tend to $0$ we have $$f(a_n)=0to 0\f(b_n)=({1over n})^{p}=n^{-p}to infty$$since $p<0$. Also $p=0$ is invalid since $f(a_n)=0$ and $f(b_n)=1$. Therefore we need $p>0$. After attaining this primary result, now we apply the definition of differentiability in $0$ for which$$f'(0)=lim_{xto 0} {f(x)over x}$$defining the same $a_n$ and $b_n$ we have $$f'(a_n)=0$$and $$f'(b_n)=lim_{xto 0}x^{p-1}=0$$which imposes that $p>1$ with the same argument. Therefore the final answer would be $p>1$.
add a comment |
First you need continuity in $0$. If $p<0$ then the function is not continuous in zero since $$a_n={pi over n}\b_n={1over n}$$while both $a_n ,b_n$ tend to $0$ we have $$f(a_n)=0to 0\f(b_n)=({1over n})^{p}=n^{-p}to infty$$since $p<0$. Also $p=0$ is invalid since $f(a_n)=0$ and $f(b_n)=1$. Therefore we need $p>0$. After attaining this primary result, now we apply the definition of differentiability in $0$ for which$$f'(0)=lim_{xto 0} {f(x)over x}$$defining the same $a_n$ and $b_n$ we have $$f'(a_n)=0$$and $$f'(b_n)=lim_{xto 0}x^{p-1}=0$$which imposes that $p>1$ with the same argument. Therefore the final answer would be $p>1$.
First you need continuity in $0$. If $p<0$ then the function is not continuous in zero since $$a_n={pi over n}\b_n={1over n}$$while both $a_n ,b_n$ tend to $0$ we have $$f(a_n)=0to 0\f(b_n)=({1over n})^{p}=n^{-p}to infty$$since $p<0$. Also $p=0$ is invalid since $f(a_n)=0$ and $f(b_n)=1$. Therefore we need $p>0$. After attaining this primary result, now we apply the definition of differentiability in $0$ for which$$f'(0)=lim_{xto 0} {f(x)over x}$$defining the same $a_n$ and $b_n$ we have $$f'(a_n)=0$$and $$f'(b_n)=lim_{xto 0}x^{p-1}=0$$which imposes that $p>1$ with the same argument. Therefore the final answer would be $p>1$.
answered Nov 30 '18 at 11:10
Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz
14.2k3937
14.2k3937
add a comment |
add a comment |
What do you know about differentiability? Can you show us your work?
– GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
Nov 30 '18 at 10:51