Need help, URGENT maths question: (2 Viewers)

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Thanks! Why didn't I think of that?!
If we use L'Hospital's rule, we'll end up having to assume that f' is continuous at a after the differentiation step in order to take the limit as h -> 0 of the resulting expression. But we aren't given this fact, so we can't assume it, so can't really use L'Hospital like this.
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
If we use L'Hospital's rule, we'll end up having to assume that f' is continuous at a after the differentiation step in order to take the limit as h -> 0 of the resulting expression. But we aren't given this fact, so we can't assume it, so can't really use L'Hospital like this.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
We used that assumption in the last equality. I.e. assuming that f'(a + ph) will tend to f'(a) as h -> 0. This essentially is using the assumption that f' is continuous at a (by definition of continuity).

(In general it could happen that f'(a + t) has no limit even as t -> 0.)
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
We used that assumption in the last equality. I.e. assuming that f'(a + ph) will tend to f'(a) as h -> 0. This essentially is using the assumption that f' is continuous at a (by definition of continuity).

(In general it could happen that f'(a + t) has no limit even as t -> 0.)
But if the question states that f is differentiable at x=a, can't we assume that f' is continuous at a?
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Last edited:

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
I love how I'm seeing questions that I already asked InteGrand.
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
That last Q. is essentially just based on using the higher-order derivative test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_derivative_test#Higher-order_derivative_test ). So you look for places where the first and second derivatives are simultaneously 0 for a horizontal point of inflexion, and out of these points, the points where the first non-zero derivative at the point is an odd derivative (e.g. third or fifth derivative) will be a horizontal point of inflexion.
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
That last Q. is essentially just based on using the higher-order derivative test ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_derivative_test#Higher-order_derivative_test ). So you look for places where the first and second derivatives are simultaneously 0 for a horizontal point of inflexion, and out of these points, the points where the first non-zero derivative at the point is an odd derivative (e.g. third or fifth derivative) will be a horizontal point of inflexion.
Sorry, but I still don't get the question. Because when I differentiate it, I get something very complex, and it is very hard to solve it. Is there a simpler way to do this?

In order for this to be true, we need g to be of fixed sign (and integrable of course), rather than simply non-zero. (If g is given to be continuous though, then g(x) =/= 0 suffices.)

A proof of that result is given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_...rst_Mean_Value_Theorem_for_Definite_Integrals .
Is there any way this proof connects to this question I answered before it, because it says if I generalise the proof below, I will be able to answer the question.

Just another question:



Is this right, or am I missing something
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Sorry, but I still don't get the question. Because when I differentiate it, I get something very complex, and it is very hard to solve it. Is there a simpler way to do this?



Is there any way this proof connects to this question I answered before it, because it says if I generalise the proof below, I will be able to answer the question.
You could also have answered the first Q. in a similar way to the Wikipedia proof linked. Then the Wikipedia proof becomes a generalisation of the first proof.
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
You could also have answered the first Q. in a similar way to the Wikipedia proof linked. Then the Wikipedia proof becomes a generalisation of the first proof.
Right, thanks. Do you mind (I know this sounds stupid, but) also giving a proof of the question below, because I get the derivative test, but when I differentiate it I get something very complex, so its hard to determine the points of inflexion.

Thanks InteGrand, I get the proof on Wikipedia. But does that connect to my previous proof at all?

I also have another question:
 

leehuan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
5,805
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
I asked my calculus tutor that one











As does the other case



And then sub them back into the above equations.

Note: One of them does yield the answers at the back of the textbook

And he was way too lazy to test for P.O.I.
 

1008

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
229
Gender
Male
HSC
2015
I asked my calculus tutor that one











As does the other case



And then sub them back into the above equations.

Note: One of them does yield the answers at the back of the textbook

And he was way too lazy to test for P.O.I.
Thanks :) I have another question, though:


 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top