Question on Infinitely Differentiable Functions [duplicate]











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:




  • Let $f:(-1,1) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be smooth on $(-1,1)$, $f(0) = 1$. Find $f(x)$.

    1 answer




Let $f:(-1,1)rightarrowmathbb R$ be infinitely differentiable on $(-1,1)$ with $f(0)=1$ and has the following properties:



(1) $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ for every $xin (-1, 1)$ and for every $nin mathbb N$



(2) $f'(frac{1}{m+1})=0$ for every $min mathbb N$



I need to:



Find the value of $f^{(n)}(0)$ for each $nin mathbb N$



Determine the value of $f(x)$ for every $xin(-1,1)$



I claim that $f^{(n)}(0)=0$ for all $nin mathbb N$ and I wanted to prove this by induction. When $n=1$, we note that by (2), $f'(0)=0$ by the sequential criterion for limits with $mrightarrow infty$. However, I am not sure on how to prove the inductive step.



I note that from (1), we have $f(x)lefrac{1}{1-x}$ by Taylor's Theorem.



Any help is greatly appreciated!










share|cite|improve this question













marked as duplicate by Martin R, Servaes, Community Nov 23 at 11:38


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.



















    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite
    1













    This question already has an answer here:




    • Let $f:(-1,1) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be smooth on $(-1,1)$, $f(0) = 1$. Find $f(x)$.

      1 answer




    Let $f:(-1,1)rightarrowmathbb R$ be infinitely differentiable on $(-1,1)$ with $f(0)=1$ and has the following properties:



    (1) $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ for every $xin (-1, 1)$ and for every $nin mathbb N$



    (2) $f'(frac{1}{m+1})=0$ for every $min mathbb N$



    I need to:



    Find the value of $f^{(n)}(0)$ for each $nin mathbb N$



    Determine the value of $f(x)$ for every $xin(-1,1)$



    I claim that $f^{(n)}(0)=0$ for all $nin mathbb N$ and I wanted to prove this by induction. When $n=1$, we note that by (2), $f'(0)=0$ by the sequential criterion for limits with $mrightarrow infty$. However, I am not sure on how to prove the inductive step.



    I note that from (1), we have $f(x)lefrac{1}{1-x}$ by Taylor's Theorem.



    Any help is greatly appreciated!










    share|cite|improve this question













    marked as duplicate by Martin R, Servaes, Community Nov 23 at 11:38


    This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

















      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1






      This question already has an answer here:




      • Let $f:(-1,1) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be smooth on $(-1,1)$, $f(0) = 1$. Find $f(x)$.

        1 answer




      Let $f:(-1,1)rightarrowmathbb R$ be infinitely differentiable on $(-1,1)$ with $f(0)=1$ and has the following properties:



      (1) $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ for every $xin (-1, 1)$ and for every $nin mathbb N$



      (2) $f'(frac{1}{m+1})=0$ for every $min mathbb N$



      I need to:



      Find the value of $f^{(n)}(0)$ for each $nin mathbb N$



      Determine the value of $f(x)$ for every $xin(-1,1)$



      I claim that $f^{(n)}(0)=0$ for all $nin mathbb N$ and I wanted to prove this by induction. When $n=1$, we note that by (2), $f'(0)=0$ by the sequential criterion for limits with $mrightarrow infty$. However, I am not sure on how to prove the inductive step.



      I note that from (1), we have $f(x)lefrac{1}{1-x}$ by Taylor's Theorem.



      Any help is greatly appreciated!










      share|cite|improve this question














      This question already has an answer here:




      • Let $f:(-1,1) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be smooth on $(-1,1)$, $f(0) = 1$. Find $f(x)$.

        1 answer




      Let $f:(-1,1)rightarrowmathbb R$ be infinitely differentiable on $(-1,1)$ with $f(0)=1$ and has the following properties:



      (1) $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ for every $xin (-1, 1)$ and for every $nin mathbb N$



      (2) $f'(frac{1}{m+1})=0$ for every $min mathbb N$



      I need to:



      Find the value of $f^{(n)}(0)$ for each $nin mathbb N$



      Determine the value of $f(x)$ for every $xin(-1,1)$



      I claim that $f^{(n)}(0)=0$ for all $nin mathbb N$ and I wanted to prove this by induction. When $n=1$, we note that by (2), $f'(0)=0$ by the sequential criterion for limits with $mrightarrow infty$. However, I am not sure on how to prove the inductive step.



      I note that from (1), we have $f(x)lefrac{1}{1-x}$ by Taylor's Theorem.



      Any help is greatly appreciated!





      This question already has an answer here:




      • Let $f:(-1,1) rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be smooth on $(-1,1)$, $f(0) = 1$. Find $f(x)$.

        1 answer








      calculus taylor-expansion






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 23 at 9:08









      Derp

      228214




      228214




      marked as duplicate by Martin R, Servaes, Community Nov 23 at 11:38


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






      marked as duplicate by Martin R, Servaes, Community Nov 23 at 11:38


      This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          Rolle's theorem implies that $f''$ has a zero in the interval $(frac{1}{m+2}, frac{1}{m+1})$
          for each $m in Bbb N$, therefore $f''(0) = 0$.



          The same argument can be repeated to show that each derivative $f^{(k)}$ has
          a sequence of zeros converging to $0$.



          (The estimate $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ is not needed for this
          conclusion.)






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
            – Robert Z
            Nov 23 at 9:41












          • @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
            – Martin R
            Nov 23 at 9:57










          • As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
            – Robert Z
            Nov 23 at 12:51




















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Hint. Let us consider the case $n=2$ (try by your own the case $n>2$)



          For any $minmathbb{N}$, by using the Taylor expansion of $f'$ at $0$, we have that there exists $t_min (-1,1)$ such that
          $$f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=f'(0)+f''(0)cdot frac{1}{m+1}+frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)^2}.$$
          Since $f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=0$ and we already know that $f'(0)=0$, it follows
          $$f''(0)=-frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)}$$
          which implies that as $mto+infty$,
          $$|f''(0)|=frac{|f'''(t_m)|}{2}cdot frac{1} {(m+1)}leqfrac{M_3} {2(m+1)}to 0.$$
          where $M_3=max_{xin[-1/2,1/2]}| f^{(3)}(x)|$ (the assumption $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ in $(-1,1)$ is not needed).






          share|cite|improve this answer






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted










            Rolle's theorem implies that $f''$ has a zero in the interval $(frac{1}{m+2}, frac{1}{m+1})$
            for each $m in Bbb N$, therefore $f''(0) = 0$.



            The same argument can be repeated to show that each derivative $f^{(k)}$ has
            a sequence of zeros converging to $0$.



            (The estimate $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ is not needed for this
            conclusion.)






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 9:41












            • @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
              – Martin R
              Nov 23 at 9:57










            • As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 12:51

















            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted










            Rolle's theorem implies that $f''$ has a zero in the interval $(frac{1}{m+2}, frac{1}{m+1})$
            for each $m in Bbb N$, therefore $f''(0) = 0$.



            The same argument can be repeated to show that each derivative $f^{(k)}$ has
            a sequence of zeros converging to $0$.



            (The estimate $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ is not needed for this
            conclusion.)






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 9:41












            • @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
              – Martin R
              Nov 23 at 9:57










            • As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 12:51















            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            4
            down vote



            accepted






            Rolle's theorem implies that $f''$ has a zero in the interval $(frac{1}{m+2}, frac{1}{m+1})$
            for each $m in Bbb N$, therefore $f''(0) = 0$.



            The same argument can be repeated to show that each derivative $f^{(k)}$ has
            a sequence of zeros converging to $0$.



            (The estimate $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ is not needed for this
            conclusion.)






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Rolle's theorem implies that $f''$ has a zero in the interval $(frac{1}{m+2}, frac{1}{m+1})$
            for each $m in Bbb N$, therefore $f''(0) = 0$.



            The same argument can be repeated to show that each derivative $f^{(k)}$ has
            a sequence of zeros converging to $0$.



            (The estimate $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ is not needed for this
            conclusion.)







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 23 at 9:32

























            answered Nov 23 at 9:21









            Martin R

            26.1k33047




            26.1k33047












            • Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 9:41












            • @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
              – Martin R
              Nov 23 at 9:57










            • As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 12:51




















            • Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 9:41












            • @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
              – Martin R
              Nov 23 at 9:57










            • As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
              – Robert Z
              Nov 23 at 12:51


















            Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
            – Robert Z
            Nov 23 at 9:41






            Nice answer (+1). I realized that also by my approach the estimate of $n$-th derivative is not needed
            – Robert Z
            Nov 23 at 9:41














            @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
            – Martin R
            Nov 23 at 9:57




            @RobertZ: Thanks. – As it turns out, the question has been asked and answered before, unfortunately I did not notice that before posting the answer.
            – Martin R
            Nov 23 at 9:57












            As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
            – Robert Z
            Nov 23 at 12:51






            As far as I can see no answers there pointed out that the estimate on $f^{(n)}$ is superfluous.
            – Robert Z
            Nov 23 at 12:51












            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Hint. Let us consider the case $n=2$ (try by your own the case $n>2$)



            For any $minmathbb{N}$, by using the Taylor expansion of $f'$ at $0$, we have that there exists $t_min (-1,1)$ such that
            $$f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=f'(0)+f''(0)cdot frac{1}{m+1}+frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)^2}.$$
            Since $f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=0$ and we already know that $f'(0)=0$, it follows
            $$f''(0)=-frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)}$$
            which implies that as $mto+infty$,
            $$|f''(0)|=frac{|f'''(t_m)|}{2}cdot frac{1} {(m+1)}leqfrac{M_3} {2(m+1)}to 0.$$
            where $M_3=max_{xin[-1/2,1/2]}| f^{(3)}(x)|$ (the assumption $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ in $(-1,1)$ is not needed).






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Hint. Let us consider the case $n=2$ (try by your own the case $n>2$)



              For any $minmathbb{N}$, by using the Taylor expansion of $f'$ at $0$, we have that there exists $t_min (-1,1)$ such that
              $$f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=f'(0)+f''(0)cdot frac{1}{m+1}+frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)^2}.$$
              Since $f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=0$ and we already know that $f'(0)=0$, it follows
              $$f''(0)=-frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)}$$
              which implies that as $mto+infty$,
              $$|f''(0)|=frac{|f'''(t_m)|}{2}cdot frac{1} {(m+1)}leqfrac{M_3} {2(m+1)}to 0.$$
              where $M_3=max_{xin[-1/2,1/2]}| f^{(3)}(x)|$ (the assumption $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ in $(-1,1)$ is not needed).






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                Hint. Let us consider the case $n=2$ (try by your own the case $n>2$)



                For any $minmathbb{N}$, by using the Taylor expansion of $f'$ at $0$, we have that there exists $t_min (-1,1)$ such that
                $$f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=f'(0)+f''(0)cdot frac{1}{m+1}+frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)^2}.$$
                Since $f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=0$ and we already know that $f'(0)=0$, it follows
                $$f''(0)=-frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)}$$
                which implies that as $mto+infty$,
                $$|f''(0)|=frac{|f'''(t_m)|}{2}cdot frac{1} {(m+1)}leqfrac{M_3} {2(m+1)}to 0.$$
                where $M_3=max_{xin[-1/2,1/2]}| f^{(3)}(x)|$ (the assumption $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ in $(-1,1)$ is not needed).






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Hint. Let us consider the case $n=2$ (try by your own the case $n>2$)



                For any $minmathbb{N}$, by using the Taylor expansion of $f'$ at $0$, we have that there exists $t_min (-1,1)$ such that
                $$f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=f'(0)+f''(0)cdot frac{1}{m+1}+frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)^2}.$$
                Since $f'left(frac{1}{m+1}right)=0$ and we already know that $f'(0)=0$, it follows
                $$f''(0)=-frac{f'''(t_m)}{2}cdot frac{1}{(m+1)}$$
                which implies that as $mto+infty$,
                $$|f''(0)|=frac{|f'''(t_m)|}{2}cdot frac{1} {(m+1)}leqfrac{M_3} {2(m+1)}to 0.$$
                where $M_3=max_{xin[-1/2,1/2]}| f^{(3)}(x)|$ (the assumption $vert f^{(n)}(x)vert le n!$ in $(-1,1)$ is not needed).







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 23 at 9:39

























                answered Nov 23 at 9:18









                Robert Z

                91.6k1058129




                91.6k1058129















                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Plaza Victoria

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

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