for all .
a. Show that if is differentiable on a closed interval and if is continuous on then is Lipschitz on .
b. Review 43 Continuity Practice#4.3.11 for the definition of contractive. If we add the assumption that on does it follow that is contractive on this set?
Proof
a. Suppose is differentiable on (and thus is continuous on at least ) and is continuous on .
By the Extreme Value Theorem then attains an absolute maximum and absolute minimum in that interval. Let's denote the maximum and the minimum , so then such that (the min.) and (the max).
Now notice if then the max is the min, so we have a constant function. In that case for some so then by our corollary then . So letting then so choose then as an obvious example.
Now if instead then the max isn't the min. Then choose . To show is Lipschitz, assume for contradiction that such that for any :
Now notice that our chosen is > 0, so then this inequality is true. Now by the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) then such that:
So then clearly:
so we found a point that has a larger derivative (in magnitude) than the largest possible derivatives (in magnitude). This is a contradiction!
b. Yes it is! The idea is that adding the restricted slope sort of forces the function to have its range be a subset of it's domain.
To prove this, let for all . We want to show that is contractive, or that there exists some such that:
Let be differentiable on an interval . If on , show that is one-to-one on . Provide an example to show that the converse statement need not be true.
Proof
Let be arbitrary. WLOG let . To show that , assume for contradiction that it is instead . Then using the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) then such that:
But that contradicts for all ! Thus then , so then must be injective (one-to-one).
Now for the converse, notice that is one-to-one on but is not differentiable at for example.
โ
5.3.3
Question
Let be differentiable on an interval , and assume that , , and .
a. Argue that where .
b. Argue that at some point we have .
c. Argue that at some point in the domain.
c. The argument comes from the fact that the derivative must be positive on , and at most 0 over . Using the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) over then such that:
Let be differentiable on an interval containing zero, and assume is a Sequence with and .
a. If for all show that and .
b. Add the assumption that is twice-differentiable at zero. Show that as well.
Proof
a. Notice that since is differentiable then is continuous on containing zero. As such then:
exists. By the Existence of Functional Limits then because is a limit point of , then this sequence must have , thus . Similarly, since is differentiable then:
a. Let be differentiable, and for all . Show for all .
b. Let be twice differentiable, and for all . Show for all .
c. Conjecture and prove an analogous result for a function that is differentiable three times on .
(for the case the theorem holds, so the above only considers ). Thus (since ).
b. Again let be arbitrary. Notice that is differentiable and so then by (a) then . Using the Generalized Mean Value Theorem with the functions and then we get that such that:
c. Consider the thrice-differentiable function . I claim and expect that:
for all , where this is determined by . In this specific case via direct calculation.
From (a) we know that since then . A similar argument shows that (b) can be applied via then . Use again the Generalized Mean Value Theorem with the functions and to get that such that:
โ
5.3.7
Question
A fixed point of a function is a value where . Show that if is differentiable on an interval with then can have at most one fixed point.
Proof
Suppose is differentiable on some interval (at worst it's open) with . Assume for contradiction that there are at least two unique fixed points on that interval.
Since are fixed points, then and . Now because (since they are unique) then one is larger. WLOG let . Then by the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) ( is continuous on ) then such that:
but this contradicts that for any (in this case we found the point ).
โ
5.3.8
Question
Suppose is continuous on an interval containing zero and differentiable for all . If , show exists and equals .
Proof
Let be this interval where . We want a function such that we can do:
because going through this process with requires us determining which is impossible here. Choose such that we know that as required for this to work. Notice is continuous on the interval and differentiable for all just like . Then:
Thus:
but notice by direct calculation that exists and is zero, so then as requested.
โ
5.3.10
Question
Let and . Using the familiar properties of these functions, compute the limit as of . Explain why the results are surprising but not in conflict with L'Hopital's Rule(s).
Because it get's squeezed by and in the interval which both have limit 0.
per our argument for .
Now for let's get the derivatives:
Thus:
Calculating the limit:
Where the right limit doesn't exist (due to the part) so then the limit doesn't exist. This shows that the converse for L'Hopital's Rule(s) doesn't necessarily hold.
โ
5.3.12
Question
If is twice differentiable on an open interval containing and is continuous at , show:
Proof
We will first prove (as the book mentions) that since is differentiable at then:
(ie: the alternative definition of a limit works). Simply set then: