Can a function be smooth at a single point?












11












$begingroup$


I saw a thread (Find a function smooth at one isolated point) in which it is asked whether or not it is possible for a function to be smooth at a point, but not smooth on a deleted neighbourhood of said point. The thread is closed with an accepted answer despite the answer seeming to be incorrect, so I would like to re-ask the question here.



I have read (here: Example of a function continuous at only one point.) that $$f=begin{cases}x,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is only continuous at $x=0$. If it is continuous at $x=0$, then maybe
$$f=begin{cases}sum_{k=1}^{infty}x^k,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is smooth at $x=0$ and nowhere else (does this work?).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $sum x^{k}$ does not converge for $|x| geq 1$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 5 at 0:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In case anyone is wondering (like I was), to say that a function $f:mathbb R to mathbb R$ is smooth at the point $x$ means that if $k$ is a positive integer then there exists an open interval $U$ containing $x$ such that $f$ is $C^k$ on $U$.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 5 at 0:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    No matter what k is only the first derivative exists at $0$, because the first derivative has to exist at more than one point for higher order derivatives to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik Parkinson
    Jan 5 at 0:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @littleO The person answering the question in the first link was trying to make a function that is only smooth at a single point by having the neighbourhoods on which the function is $C^k$ get smaller as $k$ increased, converging in size to 0. Does that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Benjamin Lloyd
    Jan 5 at 1:07






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is the only way this can work.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 5 at 1:08
















11












$begingroup$


I saw a thread (Find a function smooth at one isolated point) in which it is asked whether or not it is possible for a function to be smooth at a point, but not smooth on a deleted neighbourhood of said point. The thread is closed with an accepted answer despite the answer seeming to be incorrect, so I would like to re-ask the question here.



I have read (here: Example of a function continuous at only one point.) that $$f=begin{cases}x,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is only continuous at $x=0$. If it is continuous at $x=0$, then maybe
$$f=begin{cases}sum_{k=1}^{infty}x^k,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is smooth at $x=0$ and nowhere else (does this work?).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $sum x^{k}$ does not converge for $|x| geq 1$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 5 at 0:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In case anyone is wondering (like I was), to say that a function $f:mathbb R to mathbb R$ is smooth at the point $x$ means that if $k$ is a positive integer then there exists an open interval $U$ containing $x$ such that $f$ is $C^k$ on $U$.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 5 at 0:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    No matter what k is only the first derivative exists at $0$, because the first derivative has to exist at more than one point for higher order derivatives to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik Parkinson
    Jan 5 at 0:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @littleO The person answering the question in the first link was trying to make a function that is only smooth at a single point by having the neighbourhoods on which the function is $C^k$ get smaller as $k$ increased, converging in size to 0. Does that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Benjamin Lloyd
    Jan 5 at 1:07






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is the only way this can work.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 5 at 1:08














11












11








11


3



$begingroup$


I saw a thread (Find a function smooth at one isolated point) in which it is asked whether or not it is possible for a function to be smooth at a point, but not smooth on a deleted neighbourhood of said point. The thread is closed with an accepted answer despite the answer seeming to be incorrect, so I would like to re-ask the question here.



I have read (here: Example of a function continuous at only one point.) that $$f=begin{cases}x,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is only continuous at $x=0$. If it is continuous at $x=0$, then maybe
$$f=begin{cases}sum_{k=1}^{infty}x^k,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is smooth at $x=0$ and nowhere else (does this work?).










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I saw a thread (Find a function smooth at one isolated point) in which it is asked whether or not it is possible for a function to be smooth at a point, but not smooth on a deleted neighbourhood of said point. The thread is closed with an accepted answer despite the answer seeming to be incorrect, so I would like to re-ask the question here.



I have read (here: Example of a function continuous at only one point.) that $$f=begin{cases}x,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is only continuous at $x=0$. If it is continuous at $x=0$, then maybe
$$f=begin{cases}sum_{k=1}^{infty}x^k,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{Q}\
0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,mathrm{if},xinmathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}
end{cases}$$

is smooth at $x=0$ and nowhere else (does this work?).







real-analysis derivatives smooth-functions






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 5 at 0:42









Benjamin LloydBenjamin Lloyd

1057




1057








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $sum x^{k}$ does not converge for $|x| geq 1$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 5 at 0:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In case anyone is wondering (like I was), to say that a function $f:mathbb R to mathbb R$ is smooth at the point $x$ means that if $k$ is a positive integer then there exists an open interval $U$ containing $x$ such that $f$ is $C^k$ on $U$.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 5 at 0:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    No matter what k is only the first derivative exists at $0$, because the first derivative has to exist at more than one point for higher order derivatives to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik Parkinson
    Jan 5 at 0:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @littleO The person answering the question in the first link was trying to make a function that is only smooth at a single point by having the neighbourhoods on which the function is $C^k$ get smaller as $k$ increased, converging in size to 0. Does that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Benjamin Lloyd
    Jan 5 at 1:07






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is the only way this can work.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 5 at 1:08














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    $sum x^{k}$ does not converge for $|x| geq 1$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 5 at 0:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In case anyone is wondering (like I was), to say that a function $f:mathbb R to mathbb R$ is smooth at the point $x$ means that if $k$ is a positive integer then there exists an open interval $U$ containing $x$ such that $f$ is $C^k$ on $U$.
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Jan 5 at 0:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    No matter what k is only the first derivative exists at $0$, because the first derivative has to exist at more than one point for higher order derivatives to exist.
    $endgroup$
    – Erik Parkinson
    Jan 5 at 0:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @littleO The person answering the question in the first link was trying to make a function that is only smooth at a single point by having the neighbourhoods on which the function is $C^k$ get smaller as $k$ increased, converging in size to 0. Does that work?
    $endgroup$
    – Benjamin Lloyd
    Jan 5 at 1:07






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    This is the only way this can work.
    $endgroup$
    – Severin Schraven
    Jan 5 at 1:08








2




2




$begingroup$
$sum x^{k}$ does not converge for $|x| geq 1$
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 5 at 0:47




$begingroup$
$sum x^{k}$ does not converge for $|x| geq 1$
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 5 at 0:47




3




3




$begingroup$
In case anyone is wondering (like I was), to say that a function $f:mathbb R to mathbb R$ is smooth at the point $x$ means that if $k$ is a positive integer then there exists an open interval $U$ containing $x$ such that $f$ is $C^k$ on $U$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 5 at 0:51




$begingroup$
In case anyone is wondering (like I was), to say that a function $f:mathbb R to mathbb R$ is smooth at the point $x$ means that if $k$ is a positive integer then there exists an open interval $U$ containing $x$ such that $f$ is $C^k$ on $U$.
$endgroup$
– littleO
Jan 5 at 0:51




3




3




$begingroup$
No matter what k is only the first derivative exists at $0$, because the first derivative has to exist at more than one point for higher order derivatives to exist.
$endgroup$
– Erik Parkinson
Jan 5 at 0:54




$begingroup$
No matter what k is only the first derivative exists at $0$, because the first derivative has to exist at more than one point for higher order derivatives to exist.
$endgroup$
– Erik Parkinson
Jan 5 at 0:54




2




2




$begingroup$
@littleO The person answering the question in the first link was trying to make a function that is only smooth at a single point by having the neighbourhoods on which the function is $C^k$ get smaller as $k$ increased, converging in size to 0. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Lloyd
Jan 5 at 1:07




$begingroup$
@littleO The person answering the question in the first link was trying to make a function that is only smooth at a single point by having the neighbourhoods on which the function is $C^k$ get smaller as $k$ increased, converging in size to 0. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin Lloyd
Jan 5 at 1:07




3




3




$begingroup$
This is the only way this can work.
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 5 at 1:08




$begingroup$
This is the only way this can work.
$endgroup$
– Severin Schraven
Jan 5 at 1:08










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

As I suggested yesterday, I will try to fix the example Paul Sinclair made in this post.



Let $f_0$ be a continuous and nowhere differentiable function. We define recursively for $ngeq 0$ as follows:
$$ f_{n+1}(x)
= begin{cases}
f_n(x),& xleq - frac{1}{n+1}, \
K_{n+1}(x) + int_{-frac{1}{n+1}}^x f_n(y)dy,& xin left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right]
end{cases} $$

where $K_{n+1}$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ ensuring that $f_{n+1}$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right)$. In fact,
$$ K_{n+1}(x)= sum_{j=0}^n a_j left( x+ frac{1}{n+1} right)^j$$
with
$$ a_0 = f_nleft( -frac{1}{n+1} right), qquad a_k = frac{f_n^{(k)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right) - f_n^{(k-1)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right)}{k!} quad text{for } 1leq k leq n $$
will do the job (we just have to compare the left and the right limits of the derivatives).



Next, we define
$$ f(x) = f_n(x) qquad text{for } xin left( - frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right] $$
By construction this yields a function which is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; 0 right)$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right]$. Now we extend $f$ to $mathbb{R}setminus { 0}$ by defining $ f(x) := f(-x) $ for $x>0$ and $f(0):=0$.



Then this $f$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus { 0}$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus left(-frac{1}{n+1}; frac{1}{n+1} right)$.



This almost yields the desired example. We just need to modify $f$ in such a way that it is smooth in zero. Following the idea by Paul Sinclair we multiply with a smooth function which is positive except for the origin (so that we do not change the regularity away from the origin) and with enough decay s.t. the function becomes smooth in the origin. For this we need to estimate the derivatives of $f$.



For all the estimates I going to do, I will denote by $ Vert cdot Vert_{I}$ the supremum norm on the interval $I$.



First we note that for every $kin mathbb{N}$ we have
$$ Vert K_{n+1} Vert_{[-1;0]} leq 2 sum_{j=0}^n leftvert f_n^{(j)} left( -frac{1}{n+1}right) rightvert qquad (1)$$
and (this we can prove by induction)
$$ f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) = f_{n-k+1}(x) + sum_{j=0}^{k-1} K_{n-j+1}^{(k-j+1)}(x) qquad (2) $$
Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$ we get
$$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
leq Vert f_{n-k+1} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)} + 2 sum_{j=0}^{k-1} sum_{l=0}^{n-j} Vert f_{n-j}^{(l)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
leq 3 cdot (n+1)^k max_{substack{0 leq s leq n,\ 0 leq t leq min{s,k}}} Vert f_s^{(t)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)} $$

Using induction we get
$$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)}
leq 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k} cdot underbrace{Vert f_0 Vert_{[-1;0]}}_{=:C} $$



Now we fix $k$. Let $ngeq k+1$, then we have for $xin left[ - frac{1}{n+1}; - frac{1}{n+2} right]$
$$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert
= vert f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) vert
leq C cdot 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k}$$

From which we conclude for all $xin (-1;1)setminus { 0 }$ (we get it on the positive axis as we previously extended $f$ such that $f(x) = f(-x)$, hence all the estimates still hold true)
$$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert leq C cdot 3^{frac{1}{vert x vert}} cdot left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right) cdot k} $$



Finally we have that
$$ g(x) = begin{cases}
left(left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)}}right)^{-1} f(x),& xneq 0\
0,& x=0
end{cases} $$

is an example of a function which is only smooth at the origin.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    7












    $begingroup$

    The Weierstrass function is continuous everywhere and nowhere differentiable (see this proof). Given parameters $0<a<1$ and $b$ an odd integer such that $ab>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, this is
    $$w(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}a^ncos(b^npi x)$$



    Now note that this can be integrated to yield an everywhere $C^1$ nowhere $C^2$ function:
    $$W(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}frac{1}{pi}left(frac{a}{b}right)^nsin(b^npi x)$$



    This is extremely similar to the original function, only that $a$ has decreased, which regularizes the sum. Clearly, this constructs everywhere $C^k$ nowhere $C^{k+1}$ functions.



    To pass to smoothness, but only at one point, we need a way to somehow interpolate between the values of $a$ depending on $x$... so let it change to $x$ directly.



    Try (partial plot here)
    $$f(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}cos(b^npi x)left|xright|^n$$
    which has good reason to locally be $C^n$ for all $n$ in neighbourhoods of $0$ of size approximately $b^{-n}$.



    Following the original proof idea in (1), let's try using the Weierstrass M-test for uniform convergence of the $k$th termwise derivative of this sum. Using the product rule, the $k$th derivative of the $n$th term looks like
    $$f_n^{(k)}=sum_{q=0}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}$$



    For sufficiently small magnitude of $x$, a crude upper bound on the magnitude of the term is
    $$left|f_n^{(k)}right|<sum_{q=0}^kbinom{k}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^kleft(b^npiright)^kn^kleft|xright|^{n-k}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^k$$
    and recall that $k$ is a constant here. Since polynomials ($n^k$) are dominated by exponentials ($k^n$), the series converges uniformly whenever $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ for all $k$.



    Therefore in the neighbourhood $left(-b^{-k},b^{-k}right)$, the function $f(x)$ is $C^k$.



    To prove the other direction, let us pick $bgeq7$ for our purposes. Suppose that $left|xright|$ is such that $b^kleft|xright|<1$ and $b^{k+1}left|xright|>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, that is
    $$b^{-k}left(frac{1+frac{3}{2}pi}{b}right)<left|xright|<b^{-k}$$
    and we have chosen $b$ to make this interval nontrivial.



    Note that the termwise $k$th derivative double sum is absolutely and uniformly convergent, so basically we can rearrange it as much as we want. In particular, let us split out the "principal" piece where we take the derivative of the $cos$ all the time:
    $$begin{align*}f_n^{(k)}&=pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n\
    &hphantom{{}={}}+sum_{q=1}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}end{align*}$$

    Call the remaining pieces $f^{(k)*}_n$ and take the derivative one more time and bound:
    $$left|left(f^{(k)*}_nright)'right|<sum_{q=1}^{k+1}binom{k+1}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k+1-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^{k+1}left(b^npiright)^kn^{k+1}left|xright|^{n-k-1}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^{k+1}$$
    and the point is that under our hypothesis, $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ and the Weierstrass M-test still applies to it.



    What this means is that
    $$f^{(k)}=underbrace{sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n}_{text{call this }f^{(k)p}}+sum_{n=0}^{infty}f^{(k)*}_n$$
    where we have just proven the latter sum is itself continuously differentiable. Therefore $f^{(k)}$ is itself differentiable if and only if the principal part $f^{(k)p}$ is.



    Now, to take the derivative at some value $a$, we only care about a neighbourhood of $a$, so let us approximate it with the actual Weierstrass function with parameter $b^kleft|aright|$:
    $$f^{(k)p}=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n+sum_{n=0}^{infty}underbrace{pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}left(left|xright|^n-left|aright|^nright)}_{text{call this }f^{(k)e}_n}$$



    We take the derivative of the error termwise using first principles:
    $$begin{align*}left(f^{(k)e}_nright)'(a)&=lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{f^{(k)e}_n(a+h)-overbrace{f^{(k)e}_n(a)}^0}{h}\
    &=left(lim_{hrightarrow0}pi^kcosleft(b^npi(a+h)+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}right)left(lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{left|a+hright|^n-left|aright|^n}{h}right)\
    &=pi^kcosleft(b^npi a+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}n;mathrm{sgn}(a)left|aright|^{n-1}end{align*}$$

    and one last time, by the Weierstrass M-test the error terms are continuously differentiable.



    Finally, we're left with
    $$f^{(k)}-(C^1text{ function})=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n$$
    which is a Weierstrass function with parameters $b^kleft|aright|$ and $b$, and by hypothesis this function is nowhere differentiable. So $f$ within this range is $C^k$ but not $C^{k+1}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
      $endgroup$
      – Severin Schraven
      Jan 5 at 20:58






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
      $endgroup$
      – obscurans
      Jan 5 at 23:23








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
      $endgroup$
      – Severin Schraven
      Jan 5 at 23:47






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Got the proof the other way.
      $endgroup$
      – obscurans
      Jan 6 at 1:00



















    2












    $begingroup$

    I think I have a simpler solution. It doesn't depend on nowhere differenitable functions and seems less computational to me.



    For $fin C^n=C^n(mathbb R),$ define



    $$|f|_n = max_{|k|le n} sup_{mathbb R}|D^k f|.$$



    Suppose $a<b$ and $n$ is a positive integer. Define $g$ by setting



    $$g(x)=(x-a)^{n+1}(b-x)^{n+1},,text {for } xin [a,b],, g=0 text { elsewhere}.$$



    Then $gin C^n,$ but $D^{n+1}g(a),$ $D^{n+1}g(b)$ both fail to exist. Furthermore the same is true for $cg,$ where $c$ is any small positive constant. Note $|cg|_n = c|g|_n.$



    Now choose a sequence $b_1>a_1>b_2>a_2 > cdots to 0.$ In view of the above, we can choose $f_n$ such that i) $f_n$ is supported in $[a_n,b_n],$ ii) $f_nin C^n,$ iii) $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, and iv) $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n.$



    Finally, define



    $$f(x)= sum_{n=1}^{infty} f_n(x).$$



    Because the supports of the $f_n$ are disjoint, the series converges for each $x.$ Observe that on $[-b_k,b_k],$ $f=sum_{n=k}^{infty}f_n.$ Furthermore,



    $$D^j f(x) = sum_{n=k}^{infty}D^jf_n(x),,text {for }xin [-b_k,b_k],,j=0,1,dots k.$$



    This follows from the standard result on uniform convergence and differentiation. Note that the bound $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n$ is what gives the uniform convergence we need.



    It follows that $D^j f(0)=0$ for each $j.$ Yet it is clear that because $f=f_n$ near $a_n$ and $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, there is no neighborhood of $0$ where $f$ is $C^infty.$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062293%2fcan-a-function-be-smooth-at-a-single-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5












      $begingroup$

      As I suggested yesterday, I will try to fix the example Paul Sinclair made in this post.



      Let $f_0$ be a continuous and nowhere differentiable function. We define recursively for $ngeq 0$ as follows:
      $$ f_{n+1}(x)
      = begin{cases}
      f_n(x),& xleq - frac{1}{n+1}, \
      K_{n+1}(x) + int_{-frac{1}{n+1}}^x f_n(y)dy,& xin left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right]
      end{cases} $$

      where $K_{n+1}$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ ensuring that $f_{n+1}$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right)$. In fact,
      $$ K_{n+1}(x)= sum_{j=0}^n a_j left( x+ frac{1}{n+1} right)^j$$
      with
      $$ a_0 = f_nleft( -frac{1}{n+1} right), qquad a_k = frac{f_n^{(k)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right) - f_n^{(k-1)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right)}{k!} quad text{for } 1leq k leq n $$
      will do the job (we just have to compare the left and the right limits of the derivatives).



      Next, we define
      $$ f(x) = f_n(x) qquad text{for } xin left( - frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right] $$
      By construction this yields a function which is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; 0 right)$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right]$. Now we extend $f$ to $mathbb{R}setminus { 0}$ by defining $ f(x) := f(-x) $ for $x>0$ and $f(0):=0$.



      Then this $f$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus { 0}$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus left(-frac{1}{n+1}; frac{1}{n+1} right)$.



      This almost yields the desired example. We just need to modify $f$ in such a way that it is smooth in zero. Following the idea by Paul Sinclair we multiply with a smooth function which is positive except for the origin (so that we do not change the regularity away from the origin) and with enough decay s.t. the function becomes smooth in the origin. For this we need to estimate the derivatives of $f$.



      For all the estimates I going to do, I will denote by $ Vert cdot Vert_{I}$ the supremum norm on the interval $I$.



      First we note that for every $kin mathbb{N}$ we have
      $$ Vert K_{n+1} Vert_{[-1;0]} leq 2 sum_{j=0}^n leftvert f_n^{(j)} left( -frac{1}{n+1}right) rightvert qquad (1)$$
      and (this we can prove by induction)
      $$ f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) = f_{n-k+1}(x) + sum_{j=0}^{k-1} K_{n-j+1}^{(k-j+1)}(x) qquad (2) $$
      Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$ we get
      $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
      leq Vert f_{n-k+1} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)} + 2 sum_{j=0}^{k-1} sum_{l=0}^{n-j} Vert f_{n-j}^{(l)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
      leq 3 cdot (n+1)^k max_{substack{0 leq s leq n,\ 0 leq t leq min{s,k}}} Vert f_s^{(t)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)} $$

      Using induction we get
      $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)}
      leq 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k} cdot underbrace{Vert f_0 Vert_{[-1;0]}}_{=:C} $$



      Now we fix $k$. Let $ngeq k+1$, then we have for $xin left[ - frac{1}{n+1}; - frac{1}{n+2} right]$
      $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert
      = vert f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) vert
      leq C cdot 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k}$$

      From which we conclude for all $xin (-1;1)setminus { 0 }$ (we get it on the positive axis as we previously extended $f$ such that $f(x) = f(-x)$, hence all the estimates still hold true)
      $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert leq C cdot 3^{frac{1}{vert x vert}} cdot left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right) cdot k} $$



      Finally we have that
      $$ g(x) = begin{cases}
      left(left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)}}right)^{-1} f(x),& xneq 0\
      0,& x=0
      end{cases} $$

      is an example of a function which is only smooth at the origin.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        5












        $begingroup$

        As I suggested yesterday, I will try to fix the example Paul Sinclair made in this post.



        Let $f_0$ be a continuous and nowhere differentiable function. We define recursively for $ngeq 0$ as follows:
        $$ f_{n+1}(x)
        = begin{cases}
        f_n(x),& xleq - frac{1}{n+1}, \
        K_{n+1}(x) + int_{-frac{1}{n+1}}^x f_n(y)dy,& xin left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right]
        end{cases} $$

        where $K_{n+1}$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ ensuring that $f_{n+1}$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right)$. In fact,
        $$ K_{n+1}(x)= sum_{j=0}^n a_j left( x+ frac{1}{n+1} right)^j$$
        with
        $$ a_0 = f_nleft( -frac{1}{n+1} right), qquad a_k = frac{f_n^{(k)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right) - f_n^{(k-1)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right)}{k!} quad text{for } 1leq k leq n $$
        will do the job (we just have to compare the left and the right limits of the derivatives).



        Next, we define
        $$ f(x) = f_n(x) qquad text{for } xin left( - frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right] $$
        By construction this yields a function which is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; 0 right)$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right]$. Now we extend $f$ to $mathbb{R}setminus { 0}$ by defining $ f(x) := f(-x) $ for $x>0$ and $f(0):=0$.



        Then this $f$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus { 0}$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus left(-frac{1}{n+1}; frac{1}{n+1} right)$.



        This almost yields the desired example. We just need to modify $f$ in such a way that it is smooth in zero. Following the idea by Paul Sinclair we multiply with a smooth function which is positive except for the origin (so that we do not change the regularity away from the origin) and with enough decay s.t. the function becomes smooth in the origin. For this we need to estimate the derivatives of $f$.



        For all the estimates I going to do, I will denote by $ Vert cdot Vert_{I}$ the supremum norm on the interval $I$.



        First we note that for every $kin mathbb{N}$ we have
        $$ Vert K_{n+1} Vert_{[-1;0]} leq 2 sum_{j=0}^n leftvert f_n^{(j)} left( -frac{1}{n+1}right) rightvert qquad (1)$$
        and (this we can prove by induction)
        $$ f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) = f_{n-k+1}(x) + sum_{j=0}^{k-1} K_{n-j+1}^{(k-j+1)}(x) qquad (2) $$
        Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$ we get
        $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
        leq Vert f_{n-k+1} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)} + 2 sum_{j=0}^{k-1} sum_{l=0}^{n-j} Vert f_{n-j}^{(l)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
        leq 3 cdot (n+1)^k max_{substack{0 leq s leq n,\ 0 leq t leq min{s,k}}} Vert f_s^{(t)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)} $$

        Using induction we get
        $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)}
        leq 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k} cdot underbrace{Vert f_0 Vert_{[-1;0]}}_{=:C} $$



        Now we fix $k$. Let $ngeq k+1$, then we have for $xin left[ - frac{1}{n+1}; - frac{1}{n+2} right]$
        $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert
        = vert f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) vert
        leq C cdot 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k}$$

        From which we conclude for all $xin (-1;1)setminus { 0 }$ (we get it on the positive axis as we previously extended $f$ such that $f(x) = f(-x)$, hence all the estimates still hold true)
        $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert leq C cdot 3^{frac{1}{vert x vert}} cdot left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right) cdot k} $$



        Finally we have that
        $$ g(x) = begin{cases}
        left(left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)}}right)^{-1} f(x),& xneq 0\
        0,& x=0
        end{cases} $$

        is an example of a function which is only smooth at the origin.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          As I suggested yesterday, I will try to fix the example Paul Sinclair made in this post.



          Let $f_0$ be a continuous and nowhere differentiable function. We define recursively for $ngeq 0$ as follows:
          $$ f_{n+1}(x)
          = begin{cases}
          f_n(x),& xleq - frac{1}{n+1}, \
          K_{n+1}(x) + int_{-frac{1}{n+1}}^x f_n(y)dy,& xin left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right]
          end{cases} $$

          where $K_{n+1}$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ ensuring that $f_{n+1}$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right)$. In fact,
          $$ K_{n+1}(x)= sum_{j=0}^n a_j left( x+ frac{1}{n+1} right)^j$$
          with
          $$ a_0 = f_nleft( -frac{1}{n+1} right), qquad a_k = frac{f_n^{(k)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right) - f_n^{(k-1)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right)}{k!} quad text{for } 1leq k leq n $$
          will do the job (we just have to compare the left and the right limits of the derivatives).



          Next, we define
          $$ f(x) = f_n(x) qquad text{for } xin left( - frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right] $$
          By construction this yields a function which is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; 0 right)$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right]$. Now we extend $f$ to $mathbb{R}setminus { 0}$ by defining $ f(x) := f(-x) $ for $x>0$ and $f(0):=0$.



          Then this $f$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus { 0}$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus left(-frac{1}{n+1}; frac{1}{n+1} right)$.



          This almost yields the desired example. We just need to modify $f$ in such a way that it is smooth in zero. Following the idea by Paul Sinclair we multiply with a smooth function which is positive except for the origin (so that we do not change the regularity away from the origin) and with enough decay s.t. the function becomes smooth in the origin. For this we need to estimate the derivatives of $f$.



          For all the estimates I going to do, I will denote by $ Vert cdot Vert_{I}$ the supremum norm on the interval $I$.



          First we note that for every $kin mathbb{N}$ we have
          $$ Vert K_{n+1} Vert_{[-1;0]} leq 2 sum_{j=0}^n leftvert f_n^{(j)} left( -frac{1}{n+1}right) rightvert qquad (1)$$
          and (this we can prove by induction)
          $$ f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) = f_{n-k+1}(x) + sum_{j=0}^{k-1} K_{n-j+1}^{(k-j+1)}(x) qquad (2) $$
          Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$ we get
          $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
          leq Vert f_{n-k+1} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)} + 2 sum_{j=0}^{k-1} sum_{l=0}^{n-j} Vert f_{n-j}^{(l)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
          leq 3 cdot (n+1)^k max_{substack{0 leq s leq n,\ 0 leq t leq min{s,k}}} Vert f_s^{(t)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)} $$

          Using induction we get
          $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)}
          leq 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k} cdot underbrace{Vert f_0 Vert_{[-1;0]}}_{=:C} $$



          Now we fix $k$. Let $ngeq k+1$, then we have for $xin left[ - frac{1}{n+1}; - frac{1}{n+2} right]$
          $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert
          = vert f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) vert
          leq C cdot 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k}$$

          From which we conclude for all $xin (-1;1)setminus { 0 }$ (we get it on the positive axis as we previously extended $f$ such that $f(x) = f(-x)$, hence all the estimates still hold true)
          $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert leq C cdot 3^{frac{1}{vert x vert}} cdot left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right) cdot k} $$



          Finally we have that
          $$ g(x) = begin{cases}
          left(left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)}}right)^{-1} f(x),& xneq 0\
          0,& x=0
          end{cases} $$

          is an example of a function which is only smooth at the origin.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          As I suggested yesterday, I will try to fix the example Paul Sinclair made in this post.



          Let $f_0$ be a continuous and nowhere differentiable function. We define recursively for $ngeq 0$ as follows:
          $$ f_{n+1}(x)
          = begin{cases}
          f_n(x),& xleq - frac{1}{n+1}, \
          K_{n+1}(x) + int_{-frac{1}{n+1}}^x f_n(y)dy,& xin left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right]
          end{cases} $$

          where $K_{n+1}$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ ensuring that $f_{n+1}$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n+1}; 0 right)$. In fact,
          $$ K_{n+1}(x)= sum_{j=0}^n a_j left( x+ frac{1}{n+1} right)^j$$
          with
          $$ a_0 = f_nleft( -frac{1}{n+1} right), qquad a_k = frac{f_n^{(k)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right) - f_n^{(k-1)}left(-frac{1}{n+1}right)}{k!} quad text{for } 1leq k leq n $$
          will do the job (we just have to compare the left and the right limits of the derivatives).



          Next, we define
          $$ f(x) = f_n(x) qquad text{for } xin left( - frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right] $$
          By construction this yields a function which is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; 0 right)$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; - frac{1}{n+1} right]$. Now we extend $f$ to $mathbb{R}setminus { 0}$ by defining $ f(x) := f(-x) $ for $x>0$ and $f(0):=0$.



          Then this $f$ is $C^n$ on $left( - frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus { 0}$ and such that $f^{(n)}$ is continuous, but nowhere differentiable on $left(-frac{1}{n}; frac{1}{n} right) setminus left(-frac{1}{n+1}; frac{1}{n+1} right)$.



          This almost yields the desired example. We just need to modify $f$ in such a way that it is smooth in zero. Following the idea by Paul Sinclair we multiply with a smooth function which is positive except for the origin (so that we do not change the regularity away from the origin) and with enough decay s.t. the function becomes smooth in the origin. For this we need to estimate the derivatives of $f$.



          For all the estimates I going to do, I will denote by $ Vert cdot Vert_{I}$ the supremum norm on the interval $I$.



          First we note that for every $kin mathbb{N}$ we have
          $$ Vert K_{n+1} Vert_{[-1;0]} leq 2 sum_{j=0}^n leftvert f_n^{(j)} left( -frac{1}{n+1}right) rightvert qquad (1)$$
          and (this we can prove by induction)
          $$ f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) = f_{n-k+1}(x) + sum_{j=0}^{k-1} K_{n-j+1}^{(k-j+1)}(x) qquad (2) $$
          Combining $(1)$ and $(2)$ we get
          $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
          leq Vert f_{n-k+1} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)} + 2 sum_{j=0}^{k-1} sum_{l=0}^{n-j} Vert f_{n-j}^{(l)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)}
          leq 3 cdot (n+1)^k max_{substack{0 leq s leq n,\ 0 leq t leq min{s,k}}} Vert f_s^{(t)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0right)} $$

          Using induction we get
          $$ Vert f_{n+1}^{(k)} Vert_{left[- frac{1}{n+1};0 right)}
          leq 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k} cdot underbrace{Vert f_0 Vert_{[-1;0]}}_{=:C} $$



          Now we fix $k$. Let $ngeq k+1$, then we have for $xin left[ - frac{1}{n+1}; - frac{1}{n+2} right]$
          $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert
          = vert f_{n+1}^{(k)}(x) vert
          leq C cdot 3^{n+1} cdot (n+1)^{(n+1)cdot k}$$

          From which we conclude for all $xin (-1;1)setminus { 0 }$ (we get it on the positive axis as we previously extended $f$ such that $f(x) = f(-x)$, hence all the estimates still hold true)
          $$ vert f^{(k)}(x) vert leq C cdot 3^{frac{1}{vert x vert}} cdot left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right) cdot k} $$



          Finally we have that
          $$ g(x) = begin{cases}
          left(left( frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)^{left(frac{1}{vert x vert}right)}}right)^{-1} f(x),& xneq 0\
          0,& x=0
          end{cases} $$

          is an example of a function which is only smooth at the origin.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 9 at 9:25

























          answered Jan 5 at 17:17









          Severin SchravenSeverin Schraven

          6,7702936




          6,7702936























              7












              $begingroup$

              The Weierstrass function is continuous everywhere and nowhere differentiable (see this proof). Given parameters $0<a<1$ and $b$ an odd integer such that $ab>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, this is
              $$w(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}a^ncos(b^npi x)$$



              Now note that this can be integrated to yield an everywhere $C^1$ nowhere $C^2$ function:
              $$W(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}frac{1}{pi}left(frac{a}{b}right)^nsin(b^npi x)$$



              This is extremely similar to the original function, only that $a$ has decreased, which regularizes the sum. Clearly, this constructs everywhere $C^k$ nowhere $C^{k+1}$ functions.



              To pass to smoothness, but only at one point, we need a way to somehow interpolate between the values of $a$ depending on $x$... so let it change to $x$ directly.



              Try (partial plot here)
              $$f(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}cos(b^npi x)left|xright|^n$$
              which has good reason to locally be $C^n$ for all $n$ in neighbourhoods of $0$ of size approximately $b^{-n}$.



              Following the original proof idea in (1), let's try using the Weierstrass M-test for uniform convergence of the $k$th termwise derivative of this sum. Using the product rule, the $k$th derivative of the $n$th term looks like
              $$f_n^{(k)}=sum_{q=0}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}$$



              For sufficiently small magnitude of $x$, a crude upper bound on the magnitude of the term is
              $$left|f_n^{(k)}right|<sum_{q=0}^kbinom{k}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^kleft(b^npiright)^kn^kleft|xright|^{n-k}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^k$$
              and recall that $k$ is a constant here. Since polynomials ($n^k$) are dominated by exponentials ($k^n$), the series converges uniformly whenever $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ for all $k$.



              Therefore in the neighbourhood $left(-b^{-k},b^{-k}right)$, the function $f(x)$ is $C^k$.



              To prove the other direction, let us pick $bgeq7$ for our purposes. Suppose that $left|xright|$ is such that $b^kleft|xright|<1$ and $b^{k+1}left|xright|>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, that is
              $$b^{-k}left(frac{1+frac{3}{2}pi}{b}right)<left|xright|<b^{-k}$$
              and we have chosen $b$ to make this interval nontrivial.



              Note that the termwise $k$th derivative double sum is absolutely and uniformly convergent, so basically we can rearrange it as much as we want. In particular, let us split out the "principal" piece where we take the derivative of the $cos$ all the time:
              $$begin{align*}f_n^{(k)}&=pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n\
              &hphantom{{}={}}+sum_{q=1}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}end{align*}$$

              Call the remaining pieces $f^{(k)*}_n$ and take the derivative one more time and bound:
              $$left|left(f^{(k)*}_nright)'right|<sum_{q=1}^{k+1}binom{k+1}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k+1-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^{k+1}left(b^npiright)^kn^{k+1}left|xright|^{n-k-1}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^{k+1}$$
              and the point is that under our hypothesis, $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ and the Weierstrass M-test still applies to it.



              What this means is that
              $$f^{(k)}=underbrace{sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n}_{text{call this }f^{(k)p}}+sum_{n=0}^{infty}f^{(k)*}_n$$
              where we have just proven the latter sum is itself continuously differentiable. Therefore $f^{(k)}$ is itself differentiable if and only if the principal part $f^{(k)p}$ is.



              Now, to take the derivative at some value $a$, we only care about a neighbourhood of $a$, so let us approximate it with the actual Weierstrass function with parameter $b^kleft|aright|$:
              $$f^{(k)p}=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n+sum_{n=0}^{infty}underbrace{pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}left(left|xright|^n-left|aright|^nright)}_{text{call this }f^{(k)e}_n}$$



              We take the derivative of the error termwise using first principles:
              $$begin{align*}left(f^{(k)e}_nright)'(a)&=lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{f^{(k)e}_n(a+h)-overbrace{f^{(k)e}_n(a)}^0}{h}\
              &=left(lim_{hrightarrow0}pi^kcosleft(b^npi(a+h)+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}right)left(lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{left|a+hright|^n-left|aright|^n}{h}right)\
              &=pi^kcosleft(b^npi a+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}n;mathrm{sgn}(a)left|aright|^{n-1}end{align*}$$

              and one last time, by the Weierstrass M-test the error terms are continuously differentiable.



              Finally, we're left with
              $$f^{(k)}-(C^1text{ function})=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n$$
              which is a Weierstrass function with parameters $b^kleft|aright|$ and $b$, and by hypothesis this function is nowhere differentiable. So $f$ within this range is $C^k$ but not $C^{k+1}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 20:58






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 5 at 23:23








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 23:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Got the proof the other way.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 6 at 1:00
















              7












              $begingroup$

              The Weierstrass function is continuous everywhere and nowhere differentiable (see this proof). Given parameters $0<a<1$ and $b$ an odd integer such that $ab>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, this is
              $$w(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}a^ncos(b^npi x)$$



              Now note that this can be integrated to yield an everywhere $C^1$ nowhere $C^2$ function:
              $$W(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}frac{1}{pi}left(frac{a}{b}right)^nsin(b^npi x)$$



              This is extremely similar to the original function, only that $a$ has decreased, which regularizes the sum. Clearly, this constructs everywhere $C^k$ nowhere $C^{k+1}$ functions.



              To pass to smoothness, but only at one point, we need a way to somehow interpolate between the values of $a$ depending on $x$... so let it change to $x$ directly.



              Try (partial plot here)
              $$f(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}cos(b^npi x)left|xright|^n$$
              which has good reason to locally be $C^n$ for all $n$ in neighbourhoods of $0$ of size approximately $b^{-n}$.



              Following the original proof idea in (1), let's try using the Weierstrass M-test for uniform convergence of the $k$th termwise derivative of this sum. Using the product rule, the $k$th derivative of the $n$th term looks like
              $$f_n^{(k)}=sum_{q=0}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}$$



              For sufficiently small magnitude of $x$, a crude upper bound on the magnitude of the term is
              $$left|f_n^{(k)}right|<sum_{q=0}^kbinom{k}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^kleft(b^npiright)^kn^kleft|xright|^{n-k}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^k$$
              and recall that $k$ is a constant here. Since polynomials ($n^k$) are dominated by exponentials ($k^n$), the series converges uniformly whenever $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ for all $k$.



              Therefore in the neighbourhood $left(-b^{-k},b^{-k}right)$, the function $f(x)$ is $C^k$.



              To prove the other direction, let us pick $bgeq7$ for our purposes. Suppose that $left|xright|$ is such that $b^kleft|xright|<1$ and $b^{k+1}left|xright|>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, that is
              $$b^{-k}left(frac{1+frac{3}{2}pi}{b}right)<left|xright|<b^{-k}$$
              and we have chosen $b$ to make this interval nontrivial.



              Note that the termwise $k$th derivative double sum is absolutely and uniformly convergent, so basically we can rearrange it as much as we want. In particular, let us split out the "principal" piece where we take the derivative of the $cos$ all the time:
              $$begin{align*}f_n^{(k)}&=pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n\
              &hphantom{{}={}}+sum_{q=1}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}end{align*}$$

              Call the remaining pieces $f^{(k)*}_n$ and take the derivative one more time and bound:
              $$left|left(f^{(k)*}_nright)'right|<sum_{q=1}^{k+1}binom{k+1}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k+1-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^{k+1}left(b^npiright)^kn^{k+1}left|xright|^{n-k-1}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^{k+1}$$
              and the point is that under our hypothesis, $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ and the Weierstrass M-test still applies to it.



              What this means is that
              $$f^{(k)}=underbrace{sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n}_{text{call this }f^{(k)p}}+sum_{n=0}^{infty}f^{(k)*}_n$$
              where we have just proven the latter sum is itself continuously differentiable. Therefore $f^{(k)}$ is itself differentiable if and only if the principal part $f^{(k)p}$ is.



              Now, to take the derivative at some value $a$, we only care about a neighbourhood of $a$, so let us approximate it with the actual Weierstrass function with parameter $b^kleft|aright|$:
              $$f^{(k)p}=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n+sum_{n=0}^{infty}underbrace{pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}left(left|xright|^n-left|aright|^nright)}_{text{call this }f^{(k)e}_n}$$



              We take the derivative of the error termwise using first principles:
              $$begin{align*}left(f^{(k)e}_nright)'(a)&=lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{f^{(k)e}_n(a+h)-overbrace{f^{(k)e}_n(a)}^0}{h}\
              &=left(lim_{hrightarrow0}pi^kcosleft(b^npi(a+h)+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}right)left(lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{left|a+hright|^n-left|aright|^n}{h}right)\
              &=pi^kcosleft(b^npi a+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}n;mathrm{sgn}(a)left|aright|^{n-1}end{align*}$$

              and one last time, by the Weierstrass M-test the error terms are continuously differentiable.



              Finally, we're left with
              $$f^{(k)}-(C^1text{ function})=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n$$
              which is a Weierstrass function with parameters $b^kleft|aright|$ and $b$, and by hypothesis this function is nowhere differentiable. So $f$ within this range is $C^k$ but not $C^{k+1}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$









              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 20:58






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 5 at 23:23








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 23:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Got the proof the other way.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 6 at 1:00














              7












              7








              7





              $begingroup$

              The Weierstrass function is continuous everywhere and nowhere differentiable (see this proof). Given parameters $0<a<1$ and $b$ an odd integer such that $ab>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, this is
              $$w(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}a^ncos(b^npi x)$$



              Now note that this can be integrated to yield an everywhere $C^1$ nowhere $C^2$ function:
              $$W(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}frac{1}{pi}left(frac{a}{b}right)^nsin(b^npi x)$$



              This is extremely similar to the original function, only that $a$ has decreased, which regularizes the sum. Clearly, this constructs everywhere $C^k$ nowhere $C^{k+1}$ functions.



              To pass to smoothness, but only at one point, we need a way to somehow interpolate between the values of $a$ depending on $x$... so let it change to $x$ directly.



              Try (partial plot here)
              $$f(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}cos(b^npi x)left|xright|^n$$
              which has good reason to locally be $C^n$ for all $n$ in neighbourhoods of $0$ of size approximately $b^{-n}$.



              Following the original proof idea in (1), let's try using the Weierstrass M-test for uniform convergence of the $k$th termwise derivative of this sum. Using the product rule, the $k$th derivative of the $n$th term looks like
              $$f_n^{(k)}=sum_{q=0}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}$$



              For sufficiently small magnitude of $x$, a crude upper bound on the magnitude of the term is
              $$left|f_n^{(k)}right|<sum_{q=0}^kbinom{k}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^kleft(b^npiright)^kn^kleft|xright|^{n-k}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^k$$
              and recall that $k$ is a constant here. Since polynomials ($n^k$) are dominated by exponentials ($k^n$), the series converges uniformly whenever $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ for all $k$.



              Therefore in the neighbourhood $left(-b^{-k},b^{-k}right)$, the function $f(x)$ is $C^k$.



              To prove the other direction, let us pick $bgeq7$ for our purposes. Suppose that $left|xright|$ is such that $b^kleft|xright|<1$ and $b^{k+1}left|xright|>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, that is
              $$b^{-k}left(frac{1+frac{3}{2}pi}{b}right)<left|xright|<b^{-k}$$
              and we have chosen $b$ to make this interval nontrivial.



              Note that the termwise $k$th derivative double sum is absolutely and uniformly convergent, so basically we can rearrange it as much as we want. In particular, let us split out the "principal" piece where we take the derivative of the $cos$ all the time:
              $$begin{align*}f_n^{(k)}&=pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n\
              &hphantom{{}={}}+sum_{q=1}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}end{align*}$$

              Call the remaining pieces $f^{(k)*}_n$ and take the derivative one more time and bound:
              $$left|left(f^{(k)*}_nright)'right|<sum_{q=1}^{k+1}binom{k+1}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k+1-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^{k+1}left(b^npiright)^kn^{k+1}left|xright|^{n-k-1}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^{k+1}$$
              and the point is that under our hypothesis, $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ and the Weierstrass M-test still applies to it.



              What this means is that
              $$f^{(k)}=underbrace{sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n}_{text{call this }f^{(k)p}}+sum_{n=0}^{infty}f^{(k)*}_n$$
              where we have just proven the latter sum is itself continuously differentiable. Therefore $f^{(k)}$ is itself differentiable if and only if the principal part $f^{(k)p}$ is.



              Now, to take the derivative at some value $a$, we only care about a neighbourhood of $a$, so let us approximate it with the actual Weierstrass function with parameter $b^kleft|aright|$:
              $$f^{(k)p}=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n+sum_{n=0}^{infty}underbrace{pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}left(left|xright|^n-left|aright|^nright)}_{text{call this }f^{(k)e}_n}$$



              We take the derivative of the error termwise using first principles:
              $$begin{align*}left(f^{(k)e}_nright)'(a)&=lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{f^{(k)e}_n(a+h)-overbrace{f^{(k)e}_n(a)}^0}{h}\
              &=left(lim_{hrightarrow0}pi^kcosleft(b^npi(a+h)+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}right)left(lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{left|a+hright|^n-left|aright|^n}{h}right)\
              &=pi^kcosleft(b^npi a+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}n;mathrm{sgn}(a)left|aright|^{n-1}end{align*}$$

              and one last time, by the Weierstrass M-test the error terms are continuously differentiable.



              Finally, we're left with
              $$f^{(k)}-(C^1text{ function})=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n$$
              which is a Weierstrass function with parameters $b^kleft|aright|$ and $b$, and by hypothesis this function is nowhere differentiable. So $f$ within this range is $C^k$ but not $C^{k+1}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              The Weierstrass function is continuous everywhere and nowhere differentiable (see this proof). Given parameters $0<a<1$ and $b$ an odd integer such that $ab>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, this is
              $$w(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}a^ncos(b^npi x)$$



              Now note that this can be integrated to yield an everywhere $C^1$ nowhere $C^2$ function:
              $$W(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}frac{1}{pi}left(frac{a}{b}right)^nsin(b^npi x)$$



              This is extremely similar to the original function, only that $a$ has decreased, which regularizes the sum. Clearly, this constructs everywhere $C^k$ nowhere $C^{k+1}$ functions.



              To pass to smoothness, but only at one point, we need a way to somehow interpolate between the values of $a$ depending on $x$... so let it change to $x$ directly.



              Try (partial plot here)
              $$f(x)=sum_{n=0}^{infty}cos(b^npi x)left|xright|^n$$
              which has good reason to locally be $C^n$ for all $n$ in neighbourhoods of $0$ of size approximately $b^{-n}$.



              Following the original proof idea in (1), let's try using the Weierstrass M-test for uniform convergence of the $k$th termwise derivative of this sum. Using the product rule, the $k$th derivative of the $n$th term looks like
              $$f_n^{(k)}=sum_{q=0}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}$$



              For sufficiently small magnitude of $x$, a crude upper bound on the magnitude of the term is
              $$left|f_n^{(k)}right|<sum_{q=0}^kbinom{k}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^kleft(b^npiright)^kn^kleft|xright|^{n-k}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^k$$
              and recall that $k$ is a constant here. Since polynomials ($n^k$) are dominated by exponentials ($k^n$), the series converges uniformly whenever $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ for all $k$.



              Therefore in the neighbourhood $left(-b^{-k},b^{-k}right)$, the function $f(x)$ is $C^k$.



              To prove the other direction, let us pick $bgeq7$ for our purposes. Suppose that $left|xright|$ is such that $b^kleft|xright|<1$ and $b^{k+1}left|xright|>1+frac{3}{2}pi$, that is
              $$b^{-k}left(frac{1+frac{3}{2}pi}{b}right)<left|xright|<b^{-k}$$
              and we have chosen $b$ to make this interval nontrivial.



              Note that the termwise $k$th derivative double sum is absolutely and uniformly convergent, so basically we can rearrange it as much as we want. In particular, let us split out the "principal" piece where we take the derivative of the $cos$ all the time:
              $$begin{align*}f_n^{(k)}&=pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n\
              &hphantom{{}={}}+sum_{q=1}^{min(n,k)}binom{k}{q}cosleft(b^npi x+frac{(k-q)pi}{2}right)left(b^npiright)^{k-q}frac{n!}{(n-q)!}mathrm{sgn}(x)^qleft|xright|^{n-q}end{align*}$$

              Call the remaining pieces $f^{(k)*}_n$ and take the derivative one more time and bound:
              $$left|left(f^{(k)*}_nright)'right|<sum_{q=1}^{k+1}binom{k+1}{q}left(b^npiright)^{k+1-q}n^qleft|xright|^{n-q}<2^{k+1}left(b^npiright)^kn^{k+1}left|xright|^{n-k-1}=left(frac{b^k}{left|xright|}right)^nleft(2pi nleft|xright|right)^{k+1}$$
              and the point is that under our hypothesis, $frac{b^k}{left|xright|}<1$ and the Weierstrass M-test still applies to it.



              What this means is that
              $$f^{(k)}=underbrace{sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|xright|right)^n}_{text{call this }f^{(k)p}}+sum_{n=0}^{infty}f^{(k)*}_n$$
              where we have just proven the latter sum is itself continuously differentiable. Therefore $f^{(k)}$ is itself differentiable if and only if the principal part $f^{(k)p}$ is.



              Now, to take the derivative at some value $a$, we only care about a neighbourhood of $a$, so let us approximate it with the actual Weierstrass function with parameter $b^kleft|aright|$:
              $$f^{(k)p}=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n+sum_{n=0}^{infty}underbrace{pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}left(left|xright|^n-left|aright|^nright)}_{text{call this }f^{(k)e}_n}$$



              We take the derivative of the error termwise using first principles:
              $$begin{align*}left(f^{(k)e}_nright)'(a)&=lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{f^{(k)e}_n(a+h)-overbrace{f^{(k)e}_n(a)}^0}{h}\
              &=left(lim_{hrightarrow0}pi^kcosleft(b^npi(a+h)+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}right)left(lim_{hrightarrow0}frac{left|a+hright|^n-left|aright|^n}{h}right)\
              &=pi^kcosleft(b^npi a+frac{kpi}{2}right)b^{kn}n;mathrm{sgn}(a)left|aright|^{n-1}end{align*}$$

              and one last time, by the Weierstrass M-test the error terms are continuously differentiable.



              Finally, we're left with
              $$f^{(k)}-(C^1text{ function})=sum_{n=0}^{infty}pi^kcosleft(b^npi x+frac{kpi}{2}right)left(b^kleft|aright|right)^n$$
              which is a Weierstrass function with parameters $b^kleft|aright|$ and $b$, and by hypothesis this function is nowhere differentiable. So $f$ within this range is $C^k$ but not $C^{k+1}$.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Jan 6 at 2:27

























              answered Jan 5 at 1:05









              obscuransobscurans

              1,152311




              1,152311








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 20:58






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 5 at 23:23








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 23:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Got the proof the other way.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 6 at 1:00














              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 20:58






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 5 at 23:23








              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
                $endgroup$
                – Severin Schraven
                Jan 5 at 23:47






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Got the proof the other way.
                $endgroup$
                – obscurans
                Jan 6 at 1:00








              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
              $endgroup$
              – Severin Schraven
              Jan 5 at 20:58




              $begingroup$
              Could you give some heuristic why the additional decay does not give too much regularity? I quickly glimpsed at the proof in link you gave, it really looks painful to do if it really works as we cannot use the trigonometric identities right away.
              $endgroup$
              – Severin Schraven
              Jan 5 at 20:58




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
              $endgroup$
              – obscurans
              Jan 5 at 23:23






              $begingroup$
              The sketch: if we're really trying to take the derivative of $f$ at $a$, then clearly we only care about a very small range of $x$ around $a$. In that range, we can approximate it by replacing $left|xright|^n$ with $left|aright|^n$, which yields a "normal" Weierstrass-type function, known to not be $C^n$ as long as $left|aright|$ is sufficiently large. For the error term to somehow correct the derivative limit so that it now exists would be incredibly surprising, given that it also converges to $0$ as $xrightarrow a$.
              $endgroup$
              – obscurans
              Jan 5 at 23:23






              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
              $endgroup$
              – Severin Schraven
              Jan 5 at 23:47




              $begingroup$
              Ah, I'm stupid. I completely forgot that we have the parameter $a$ in the usual function as well. Thanks for the explanation!
              $endgroup$
              – Severin Schraven
              Jan 5 at 23:47




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Got the proof the other way.
              $endgroup$
              – obscurans
              Jan 6 at 1:00




              $begingroup$
              Got the proof the other way.
              $endgroup$
              – obscurans
              Jan 6 at 1:00











              2












              $begingroup$

              I think I have a simpler solution. It doesn't depend on nowhere differenitable functions and seems less computational to me.



              For $fin C^n=C^n(mathbb R),$ define



              $$|f|_n = max_{|k|le n} sup_{mathbb R}|D^k f|.$$



              Suppose $a<b$ and $n$ is a positive integer. Define $g$ by setting



              $$g(x)=(x-a)^{n+1}(b-x)^{n+1},,text {for } xin [a,b],, g=0 text { elsewhere}.$$



              Then $gin C^n,$ but $D^{n+1}g(a),$ $D^{n+1}g(b)$ both fail to exist. Furthermore the same is true for $cg,$ where $c$ is any small positive constant. Note $|cg|_n = c|g|_n.$



              Now choose a sequence $b_1>a_1>b_2>a_2 > cdots to 0.$ In view of the above, we can choose $f_n$ such that i) $f_n$ is supported in $[a_n,b_n],$ ii) $f_nin C^n,$ iii) $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, and iv) $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n.$



              Finally, define



              $$f(x)= sum_{n=1}^{infty} f_n(x).$$



              Because the supports of the $f_n$ are disjoint, the series converges for each $x.$ Observe that on $[-b_k,b_k],$ $f=sum_{n=k}^{infty}f_n.$ Furthermore,



              $$D^j f(x) = sum_{n=k}^{infty}D^jf_n(x),,text {for }xin [-b_k,b_k],,j=0,1,dots k.$$



              This follows from the standard result on uniform convergence and differentiation. Note that the bound $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n$ is what gives the uniform convergence we need.



              It follows that $D^j f(0)=0$ for each $j.$ Yet it is clear that because $f=f_n$ near $a_n$ and $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, there is no neighborhood of $0$ where $f$ is $C^infty.$






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                I think I have a simpler solution. It doesn't depend on nowhere differenitable functions and seems less computational to me.



                For $fin C^n=C^n(mathbb R),$ define



                $$|f|_n = max_{|k|le n} sup_{mathbb R}|D^k f|.$$



                Suppose $a<b$ and $n$ is a positive integer. Define $g$ by setting



                $$g(x)=(x-a)^{n+1}(b-x)^{n+1},,text {for } xin [a,b],, g=0 text { elsewhere}.$$



                Then $gin C^n,$ but $D^{n+1}g(a),$ $D^{n+1}g(b)$ both fail to exist. Furthermore the same is true for $cg,$ where $c$ is any small positive constant. Note $|cg|_n = c|g|_n.$



                Now choose a sequence $b_1>a_1>b_2>a_2 > cdots to 0.$ In view of the above, we can choose $f_n$ such that i) $f_n$ is supported in $[a_n,b_n],$ ii) $f_nin C^n,$ iii) $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, and iv) $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n.$



                Finally, define



                $$f(x)= sum_{n=1}^{infty} f_n(x).$$



                Because the supports of the $f_n$ are disjoint, the series converges for each $x.$ Observe that on $[-b_k,b_k],$ $f=sum_{n=k}^{infty}f_n.$ Furthermore,



                $$D^j f(x) = sum_{n=k}^{infty}D^jf_n(x),,text {for }xin [-b_k,b_k],,j=0,1,dots k.$$



                This follows from the standard result on uniform convergence and differentiation. Note that the bound $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n$ is what gives the uniform convergence we need.



                It follows that $D^j f(0)=0$ for each $j.$ Yet it is clear that because $f=f_n$ near $a_n$ and $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, there is no neighborhood of $0$ where $f$ is $C^infty.$






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  I think I have a simpler solution. It doesn't depend on nowhere differenitable functions and seems less computational to me.



                  For $fin C^n=C^n(mathbb R),$ define



                  $$|f|_n = max_{|k|le n} sup_{mathbb R}|D^k f|.$$



                  Suppose $a<b$ and $n$ is a positive integer. Define $g$ by setting



                  $$g(x)=(x-a)^{n+1}(b-x)^{n+1},,text {for } xin [a,b],, g=0 text { elsewhere}.$$



                  Then $gin C^n,$ but $D^{n+1}g(a),$ $D^{n+1}g(b)$ both fail to exist. Furthermore the same is true for $cg,$ where $c$ is any small positive constant. Note $|cg|_n = c|g|_n.$



                  Now choose a sequence $b_1>a_1>b_2>a_2 > cdots to 0.$ In view of the above, we can choose $f_n$ such that i) $f_n$ is supported in $[a_n,b_n],$ ii) $f_nin C^n,$ iii) $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, and iv) $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n.$



                  Finally, define



                  $$f(x)= sum_{n=1}^{infty} f_n(x).$$



                  Because the supports of the $f_n$ are disjoint, the series converges for each $x.$ Observe that on $[-b_k,b_k],$ $f=sum_{n=k}^{infty}f_n.$ Furthermore,



                  $$D^j f(x) = sum_{n=k}^{infty}D^jf_n(x),,text {for }xin [-b_k,b_k],,j=0,1,dots k.$$



                  This follows from the standard result on uniform convergence and differentiation. Note that the bound $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n$ is what gives the uniform convergence we need.



                  It follows that $D^j f(0)=0$ for each $j.$ Yet it is clear that because $f=f_n$ near $a_n$ and $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, there is no neighborhood of $0$ where $f$ is $C^infty.$






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  I think I have a simpler solution. It doesn't depend on nowhere differenitable functions and seems less computational to me.



                  For $fin C^n=C^n(mathbb R),$ define



                  $$|f|_n = max_{|k|le n} sup_{mathbb R}|D^k f|.$$



                  Suppose $a<b$ and $n$ is a positive integer. Define $g$ by setting



                  $$g(x)=(x-a)^{n+1}(b-x)^{n+1},,text {for } xin [a,b],, g=0 text { elsewhere}.$$



                  Then $gin C^n,$ but $D^{n+1}g(a),$ $D^{n+1}g(b)$ both fail to exist. Furthermore the same is true for $cg,$ where $c$ is any small positive constant. Note $|cg|_n = c|g|_n.$



                  Now choose a sequence $b_1>a_1>b_2>a_2 > cdots to 0.$ In view of the above, we can choose $f_n$ such that i) $f_n$ is supported in $[a_n,b_n],$ ii) $f_nin C^n,$ iii) $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, and iv) $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n.$



                  Finally, define



                  $$f(x)= sum_{n=1}^{infty} f_n(x).$$



                  Because the supports of the $f_n$ are disjoint, the series converges for each $x.$ Observe that on $[-b_k,b_k],$ $f=sum_{n=k}^{infty}f_n.$ Furthermore,



                  $$D^j f(x) = sum_{n=k}^{infty}D^jf_n(x),,text {for }xin [-b_k,b_k],,j=0,1,dots k.$$



                  This follows from the standard result on uniform convergence and differentiation. Note that the bound $|f_n|_n < 1/2^n$ is what gives the uniform convergence we need.



                  It follows that $D^j f(0)=0$ for each $j.$ Yet it is clear that because $f=f_n$ near $a_n$ and $D^{n+1}f_n(a_n)$ fails to exist, there is no neighborhood of $0$ where $f$ is $C^infty.$







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Jan 9 at 19:02

























                  answered Jan 8 at 20:51









                  zhw.zhw.

                  74.8k43275




                  74.8k43275






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062293%2fcan-a-function-be-smooth-at-a-single-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

                      When does type information flow backwards in C++?

                      Grease: Live!