Finding Limit related to third derivative without L'Hospital












1














Let $f(x)$ be a real function and we know that $f'(x) , f''(x) , f'''(x)$ are defined on the domain of the function.



Find $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}$$



I can find this limit using L'Hospital's rule and it is equal to $8f'''(x)$ But I want to know how can I find the limit without using L'Hospital's rule.



Also using more advanced methods like Taylor series, etc. are not valid. Only obvious things like definition of derivative $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$ and some equation like $a=a+b-b$ are valid.






calculus limits limits-without-lhopital







share|cite|improve this question
























  • Have you tried Taylor expansion?
    – gammatester
    Nov 24 at 18:22










  • @gammatester The question is meant to be solved without using any advanced method. Only the definition of derivative and some obvious equations like $a = a + b -b$ are valid. I edited the question for more clarification.
    – amir na
    Nov 24 at 18:37










  • A solution to this problem requires the use of L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor or an argument which is equivalent to the proof of these theorems. It is not a matter of simple algebraic manipulation and then application of algebra of limits.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:09


















1














Let $f(x)$ be a real function and we know that $f'(x) , f''(x) , f'''(x)$ are defined on the domain of the function.



Find $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}$$



I can find this limit using L'Hospital's rule and it is equal to $8f'''(x)$ But I want to know how can I find the limit without using L'Hospital's rule.



Also using more advanced methods like Taylor series, etc. are not valid. Only obvious things like definition of derivative $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$ and some equation like $a=a+b-b$ are valid.






calculus limits limits-without-lhopital







share|cite|improve this question
























  • Have you tried Taylor expansion?
    – gammatester
    Nov 24 at 18:22










  • @gammatester The question is meant to be solved without using any advanced method. Only the definition of derivative and some obvious equations like $a = a + b -b$ are valid. I edited the question for more clarification.
    – amir na
    Nov 24 at 18:37










  • A solution to this problem requires the use of L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor or an argument which is equivalent to the proof of these theorems. It is not a matter of simple algebraic manipulation and then application of algebra of limits.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:09
















1












1








1







Let $f(x)$ be a real function and we know that $f'(x) , f''(x) , f'''(x)$ are defined on the domain of the function.



Find $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}$$



I can find this limit using L'Hospital's rule and it is equal to $8f'''(x)$ But I want to know how can I find the limit without using L'Hospital's rule.



Also using more advanced methods like Taylor series, etc. are not valid. Only obvious things like definition of derivative $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$ and some equation like $a=a+b-b$ are valid.






calculus limits limits-without-lhopital







share|cite|improve this question















Let $f(x)$ be a real function and we know that $f'(x) , f''(x) , f'''(x)$ are defined on the domain of the function.



Find $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}$$



I can find this limit using L'Hospital's rule and it is equal to $8f'''(x)$ But I want to know how can I find the limit without using L'Hospital's rule.



Also using more advanced methods like Taylor series, etc. are not valid. Only obvious things like definition of derivative $$lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}$$ and some equation like $a=a+b-b$ are valid.






calculus limits limits-without-lhopital




calculus limits limits-without-lhopital






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 27 at 20:02









Lorenzo B.

1,8222520




1,8222520










asked Nov 24 at 18:01









amir na

385




385












  • Have you tried Taylor expansion?
    – gammatester
    Nov 24 at 18:22










  • @gammatester The question is meant to be solved without using any advanced method. Only the definition of derivative and some obvious equations like $a = a + b -b$ are valid. I edited the question for more clarification.
    – amir na
    Nov 24 at 18:37










  • A solution to this problem requires the use of L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor or an argument which is equivalent to the proof of these theorems. It is not a matter of simple algebraic manipulation and then application of algebra of limits.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:09




















  • Have you tried Taylor expansion?
    – gammatester
    Nov 24 at 18:22










  • @gammatester The question is meant to be solved without using any advanced method. Only the definition of derivative and some obvious equations like $a = a + b -b$ are valid. I edited the question for more clarification.
    – amir na
    Nov 24 at 18:37










  • A solution to this problem requires the use of L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor or an argument which is equivalent to the proof of these theorems. It is not a matter of simple algebraic manipulation and then application of algebra of limits.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:09


















Have you tried Taylor expansion?
– gammatester
Nov 24 at 18:22




Have you tried Taylor expansion?
– gammatester
Nov 24 at 18:22












@gammatester The question is meant to be solved without using any advanced method. Only the definition of derivative and some obvious equations like $a = a + b -b$ are valid. I edited the question for more clarification.
– amir na
Nov 24 at 18:37




@gammatester The question is meant to be solved without using any advanced method. Only the definition of derivative and some obvious equations like $a = a + b -b$ are valid. I edited the question for more clarification.
– amir na
Nov 24 at 18:37












A solution to this problem requires the use of L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor or an argument which is equivalent to the proof of these theorems. It is not a matter of simple algebraic manipulation and then application of algebra of limits.
– Paramanand Singh
Nov 25 at 1:09






A solution to this problem requires the use of L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor or an argument which is equivalent to the proof of these theorems. It is not a matter of simple algebraic manipulation and then application of algebra of limits.
– Paramanand Singh
Nov 25 at 1:09












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














Using the definition of a derivative, in symmetric form, as
$$f'(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+h) - f(x-h)}{2 , h}$$
then the second derivative follows
begin{align}
f''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+h) - f'(x-h)}{2 , h} \
&= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 2h) - 2 f(x) + f(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2}.
end{align}
Taking another derivative yields
begin{align}
f'''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+ 2h) - 2 f'(x) + f'(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2} \
&= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{8 , h^3}.
end{align}



The last result can be restated as
$$8 , f'''(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{h^3}.$$






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
    – Rolf Hoyer
    Nov 24 at 19:29












  • Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:07





















1














By the Taylor Theorem, write $f(x+h)$ as
$$ f(x+h)=f(x)+f'(x)h+frac12f''(x)h^2+frac16f'''(x)h^3+R(x,h)h^3$$
where the Peano remainder $R(x,h)$ satisfies
$$ lim_{hto0}R(x,h)=0. $$
Then
$$ f(x+h)-f(x-h)=2f'(x)h+frac13f'''(x)h^3+(R(x,h)-R(x,-h))h^3$$
and
$$ f(x+3h)-f(x-3h)=6f'(x)h+9f'''(x)h^3+27(R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h))h^3.$$
Therefore
begin{eqnarray*}
&&lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}\
&=&lim_{hto 0} frac{bigg[f(x+3h)- f(x-3h)bigg] - 3bigg[ f(x+h)- f(x-h) bigg]}{h^3}\
&=&lim_{hto 0} frac{8f'''(x)h^3+27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]h^3-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]h^3}{h^3}\
&=&8f'''(x)+lim_{hto0}bigg{27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]bigg}\
&=&f'''(x).
end{eqnarray*}






share|cite|improve this answer























    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%2f3011867%2ffinding-limit-related-to-third-derivative-without-lhospital%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    Using the definition of a derivative, in symmetric form, as
    $$f'(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+h) - f(x-h)}{2 , h}$$
    then the second derivative follows
    begin{align}
    f''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+h) - f'(x-h)}{2 , h} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 2h) - 2 f(x) + f(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2}.
    end{align}
    Taking another derivative yields
    begin{align}
    f'''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+ 2h) - 2 f'(x) + f'(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{8 , h^3}.
    end{align}



    The last result can be restated as
    $$8 , f'''(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{h^3}.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 2




      Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
      – Rolf Hoyer
      Nov 24 at 19:29












    • Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
      – Paramanand Singh
      Nov 25 at 1:07


















    2














    Using the definition of a derivative, in symmetric form, as
    $$f'(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+h) - f(x-h)}{2 , h}$$
    then the second derivative follows
    begin{align}
    f''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+h) - f'(x-h)}{2 , h} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 2h) - 2 f(x) + f(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2}.
    end{align}
    Taking another derivative yields
    begin{align}
    f'''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+ 2h) - 2 f'(x) + f'(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{8 , h^3}.
    end{align}



    The last result can be restated as
    $$8 , f'''(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{h^3}.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 2




      Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
      – Rolf Hoyer
      Nov 24 at 19:29












    • Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
      – Paramanand Singh
      Nov 25 at 1:07
















    2












    2








    2






    Using the definition of a derivative, in symmetric form, as
    $$f'(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+h) - f(x-h)}{2 , h}$$
    then the second derivative follows
    begin{align}
    f''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+h) - f'(x-h)}{2 , h} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 2h) - 2 f(x) + f(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2}.
    end{align}
    Taking another derivative yields
    begin{align}
    f'''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+ 2h) - 2 f'(x) + f'(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{8 , h^3}.
    end{align}



    The last result can be restated as
    $$8 , f'''(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{h^3}.$$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Using the definition of a derivative, in symmetric form, as
    $$f'(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+h) - f(x-h)}{2 , h}$$
    then the second derivative follows
    begin{align}
    f''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+h) - f'(x-h)}{2 , h} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 2h) - 2 f(x) + f(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2}.
    end{align}
    Taking another derivative yields
    begin{align}
    f'''(x) &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f'(x+ 2h) - 2 f'(x) + f'(x- 2h)}{4 , h^2} \
    &= lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{8 , h^3}.
    end{align}



    The last result can be restated as
    $$8 , f'''(x) = lim_{h to 0} frac{f(x+ 3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x- 3h)}{h^3}.$$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 24 at 18:46









    Leucippus

    19.6k102871




    19.6k102871








    • 2




      Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
      – Rolf Hoyer
      Nov 24 at 19:29












    • Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
      – Paramanand Singh
      Nov 25 at 1:07
















    • 2




      Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
      – Rolf Hoyer
      Nov 24 at 19:29












    • Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
      – Paramanand Singh
      Nov 25 at 1:07










    2




    2




    Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
    – Rolf Hoyer
    Nov 24 at 19:29






    Replacing a $f'(x+h)$ inside a limit as $hto 0$ with $ frac{f(x+2h)-f(x)}{h}$ feels like it's obviously valid, but when you look at it carefully you're making an implicit simplification along the lines of $$lim_{hto 0}left(lim_{kto 0} frac{f(x+h+k)-f(x+h)-f(x+k)+f(x)}{hk}right) = lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+2h)-2f(x+h)+f(x)}{h^2}$$, which seems less obvious to me. For this particular case the proofs justifying this interchange rely on continuity of $f''$, which is fine, but I'm worried when you do a similar interchange later it implicitly relies on $f'''$ being continuous
    – Rolf Hoyer
    Nov 24 at 19:29














    Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:07






    Your first and second use of equal sign is fine, but further usage is not automatic/obvious and needs to be justified using L'Hospital's Rule or Taylor.
    – Paramanand Singh
    Nov 25 at 1:07













    1














    By the Taylor Theorem, write $f(x+h)$ as
    $$ f(x+h)=f(x)+f'(x)h+frac12f''(x)h^2+frac16f'''(x)h^3+R(x,h)h^3$$
    where the Peano remainder $R(x,h)$ satisfies
    $$ lim_{hto0}R(x,h)=0. $$
    Then
    $$ f(x+h)-f(x-h)=2f'(x)h+frac13f'''(x)h^3+(R(x,h)-R(x,-h))h^3$$
    and
    $$ f(x+3h)-f(x-3h)=6f'(x)h+9f'''(x)h^3+27(R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h))h^3.$$
    Therefore
    begin{eqnarray*}
    &&lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}\
    &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{bigg[f(x+3h)- f(x-3h)bigg] - 3bigg[ f(x+h)- f(x-h) bigg]}{h^3}\
    &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{8f'''(x)h^3+27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]h^3-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]h^3}{h^3}\
    &=&8f'''(x)+lim_{hto0}bigg{27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]bigg}\
    &=&f'''(x).
    end{eqnarray*}






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      1














      By the Taylor Theorem, write $f(x+h)$ as
      $$ f(x+h)=f(x)+f'(x)h+frac12f''(x)h^2+frac16f'''(x)h^3+R(x,h)h^3$$
      where the Peano remainder $R(x,h)$ satisfies
      $$ lim_{hto0}R(x,h)=0. $$
      Then
      $$ f(x+h)-f(x-h)=2f'(x)h+frac13f'''(x)h^3+(R(x,h)-R(x,-h))h^3$$
      and
      $$ f(x+3h)-f(x-3h)=6f'(x)h+9f'''(x)h^3+27(R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h))h^3.$$
      Therefore
      begin{eqnarray*}
      &&lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}\
      &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{bigg[f(x+3h)- f(x-3h)bigg] - 3bigg[ f(x+h)- f(x-h) bigg]}{h^3}\
      &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{8f'''(x)h^3+27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]h^3-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]h^3}{h^3}\
      &=&8f'''(x)+lim_{hto0}bigg{27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]bigg}\
      &=&f'''(x).
      end{eqnarray*}






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1






        By the Taylor Theorem, write $f(x+h)$ as
        $$ f(x+h)=f(x)+f'(x)h+frac12f''(x)h^2+frac16f'''(x)h^3+R(x,h)h^3$$
        where the Peano remainder $R(x,h)$ satisfies
        $$ lim_{hto0}R(x,h)=0. $$
        Then
        $$ f(x+h)-f(x-h)=2f'(x)h+frac13f'''(x)h^3+(R(x,h)-R(x,-h))h^3$$
        and
        $$ f(x+3h)-f(x-3h)=6f'(x)h+9f'''(x)h^3+27(R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h))h^3.$$
        Therefore
        begin{eqnarray*}
        &&lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}\
        &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{bigg[f(x+3h)- f(x-3h)bigg] - 3bigg[ f(x+h)- f(x-h) bigg]}{h^3}\
        &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{8f'''(x)h^3+27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]h^3-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]h^3}{h^3}\
        &=&8f'''(x)+lim_{hto0}bigg{27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]bigg}\
        &=&f'''(x).
        end{eqnarray*}






        share|cite|improve this answer














        By the Taylor Theorem, write $f(x+h)$ as
        $$ f(x+h)=f(x)+f'(x)h+frac12f''(x)h^2+frac16f'''(x)h^3+R(x,h)h^3$$
        where the Peano remainder $R(x,h)$ satisfies
        $$ lim_{hto0}R(x,h)=0. $$
        Then
        $$ f(x+h)-f(x-h)=2f'(x)h+frac13f'''(x)h^3+(R(x,h)-R(x,-h))h^3$$
        and
        $$ f(x+3h)-f(x-3h)=6f'(x)h+9f'''(x)h^3+27(R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h))h^3.$$
        Therefore
        begin{eqnarray*}
        &&lim_{hto 0} frac{f(x+3h) - 3 f(x+h) + 3 f(x-h) - f(x-3h)}{h^3}\
        &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{bigg[f(x+3h)- f(x-3h)bigg] - 3bigg[ f(x+h)- f(x-h) bigg]}{h^3}\
        &=&lim_{hto 0} frac{8f'''(x)h^3+27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]h^3-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]h^3}{h^3}\
        &=&8f'''(x)+lim_{hto0}bigg{27bigg[R(x,3h)-R(x,-3h)bigg]-3bigg[R(x,h)-R(x,-h)bigg]bigg}\
        &=&f'''(x).
        end{eqnarray*}







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 27 at 19:41

























        answered Nov 26 at 21:56









        xpaul

        22.4k14455




        22.4k14455






























            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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            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%2f3011867%2ffinding-limit-related-to-third-derivative-without-lhospital%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

            Plaza Victoria

            Image
            Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l
            Read more

            In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 OneNote has two useful keyboard shortcuts for bulleted and numbered lists, namely Ctrl + . and Ctrl + - . Is there something similar for PowerPoint where the work with lists is also very common? Haven't found anything here: Use keyboard shortcuts in PowerPoint. keyboard-shortcuts microsoft-powerpoint share | improve this question edited Aug 14 '14 at 14:49 Linger 2,826 10 28 40
            Read more

            How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...

            Image
            1 0 I want to put 3 images in LateX such as 2 figures are side by side horizotally and 3rd figure below these 2 side by side figures but in middle. I have following code: begin{figure}[H] centering begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.50linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8010_AP.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8010 AP} label{fig:Genelec 8010} end{minipage}% begin{minipage}{.5textwidth} centering includegraphics[width=.69linewidth]{Text/Images/Genelec_8020_CPM.jpg} captionof{figure}{Genelec 8020 CPM} label{fig:Genelec 8020} end{minipage}% end{figure} %%Here is my 3rd picture code begin{figure} centering includegraphics[width=5cm]{Text/Images/Genelec_8030_BPM.jpg} caption{Genelec 8030 BPM} label{fig:Genelec 8030} end{figure} I want to ask ho
            Read more