14 ‫ תרגיל‬- 1 ‫ חשבון אינפיניטסימלי‬80131-2

332397017 .‫ז‬.‫משה רוזנשטיין ת‬

19/06/2022

Question 1
‫א‬
We’ll show that 0 is the only local maximum and that there are not local minima.
Let x0 ∈ R. Suppose x0 was a local maximum or local minimum of f .
Suppose for contradiction that x0 6= 0. Then we have some neighbourhood of
x0 where x 6= 0 and hence f (x) = x4 , for example taking a radius of δ0 = |x0 |,
Bδ0 (x0 ) is such a neighbourhood. So in that neighbourhood we have

f (t) − f (x0 ) t4 − x40

∆f,x0 (t) = = = ∆x7→x4 ,x0 (t)
t − x0 t − x0
Since we’re taking a limit of f at x0 , we only need consider what happens
in this neighbourhood of x0 , and therefore

f 0 (x0 ) = lim ∆f,x0 = lim ∆x7→x4 ,x0 = (x 7→ x4 )0 (x0 ) = 4x30 6= 0

x0 x0

a contradiction to Fermat’s theorem.

Hence the only option for a local minimum and/or maximum is at x0 = 0.
We’ll prove that 0 is a local maximum. Pick δ = 1. Then for any 0 < |x| < δ
we have f (x) = x4 < 1 < 2 = f (0). Thus we’ve found a neighborhood where 0
is a maximum for f .
Now we’ll show that 0 is not a local minimum. In any radius δ > 0 of 0
we can take x = min{1, δ/2} in that neighborhood. Since 1 > x > 0 it follows
that f (x) = x4 < 1 < 2 = f (0), and therefore 0 is not a minimum for f that
neighborhood.

‫ב‬
By the exact same argument as the last question, we have that if x0 6= 0 then
x0 is not a local minimum nor a local maximum for f . We’ll show that 0 is a
local minimum but not a local maximum.

1
 Again we can take δ = 1 although this doesn’t really matter. For any
0 < x < δ we have that f (x) = x4 > 0 > −2 = f (0) and so 0 is a minimum for
f in that neighborhood and is therefore a local minimum.
Now take take any radius δ > 0 of 0. Take x = δ/2 in that neighborhood.
It follows that f (x) = x4 > 0 > −2 and hence 0 is not a local maximum for f .

‫ג‬
We’ll show that h has no local maxima or minima. Let x0 ∈ R. Take any δ > 0.
Then by the density of the rationals in the reals and the irrationals in the reals
we can find four points. In the interval (x0 , x0 + δ) we can find a rational r1 and
an irrational q1 , and in the interval (x0 − δ, x0 ) we can find a rational r2 and an
irrational q2 . Now consider the cases: If x0 is rational then h(x0 ) = −x0 and

h(r1 ) = −r1 < −x0 < −r2 = h(r2 )

If x0 is irrational we have h(x0 ) = x0 and

h(q1 ) = q1 > x0 > q2 = h(q2 )

In either case, x0 is not a minimum nor maximum in Bδ (x0 ) and hence x0

is not a local minimum nor maximum for h.

‫ד‬
We’ll prove that the local minima of r are m = [3, ∞) and that the local maxima
for r are {0} ∪ (3, ∞].
First we’ll show that any point not in any of those sets is not a minimum
nor maximum for r. It follows the same reasoning as the first part. For any
x0 ∈ (∞, 0) there is a neighborhood of x0 in which r(x) = x + 3 and hence
r0 (x0 ) = 1 and so by Fermat x0 is not an extremum. And for any x0 ∈ (0, 3)
there’s a neighborhood of x0 in which r(x) = −x + 3 and hence r0 (x0 ) = −1
and so by Fermat x0 is also not an extremum.
Now we’ll consider x0 = 0 and show it’s a local maximum but not a local
minimum. Take δ = 1. In a δ-neighborhood of 0 we have for 0 < x < 1 that

r(x) = −x + 3 < −1 + 3 = 2 < 3 = r(0)

and for −1 > x > 0 we have

r(x) = x + 3 < −1 + 3 = 2 < 3 = r(0)

So 0 is a local maximum for r. To show that it’s not a local minimum let
δ > 0. Take x = min{δ/2, 1}, and so x ∈ Bδ (0). We have x > 0 and therefore

r(x) = −x + 3 < −1 + 3 = 2 < 3 = r(0)

So there’s no neighborhood of 0 in which 0 is a minimum and hence 0 is not
a local minimum for r.

2
 Now for any x0 > 3 we have some neighbourhood in which r(x) = 0 and
in particular constant, hence x0 is both a minimum and and maximum in that
neighborhood. Hence any x0 ∈ (3, ∞) is a local minimum and a local maximum
for r.
Now we have left to show that x0 = 3 is a local minimum but not a local
maximum. In a radius δ = 1 of 3 we have for 3 < x < 4 that r(x) = 0 = r(3).
And for 2 < x < 3 we have r(x) = −x + 3 > 1 > 0 = r(3). Hence 3 is a local
maximum for r. Now we’ll show that 3 is not a local maximum for r. Let δ > 0
and take x = max{3 − δ/2, 2}. Then x ∈ Bδ (3) and also r(x) = −x + 3 > 0 =
r(3). Hence 3 is not a local maximum for r.

‫ה‬
We’ll show that the local maxima for h are the rationals, and the local minima
are the irrationals.
Let x0 ∈ R. Trivially, if x0 is rational it’s a maximum and hence a local
maximum and if it’s irrational it’s minimum and hence a local minimum. Now
we need to show that if it’s rational it’s not a local maximum and if it’s irrational
it’s not a local maximum.
Suppose x0 is rational. Take any δ > 0. Then by the density of the irrationals
in the reals we can find an irrational q in (x0 − δ, x0 + δ). Now h(x0 ) = 1 but
h(q) = 0 and so x0 is not a local minimum.
Suppose x0 is irrational. Take any δ > 0. Then by the density of the
rationals in the reals we can find a rational r in (x0 − δ, x0 + δ). Now we have
h(x0 ) = 0 but h(r) = 1 and so x0 is not a local maximum.

3
Question 2
Proof. Suppose for contradiction there were some x1 ∈ R such that x1 6= x0
and f (x1 ) > f (x0 ). Without loss of generally we’ll say x1 < x0 , since the proof
for x0 < x1 is similar. Since f is continuous, by the minimum principle we have
some x1 ≤ c ≤ x0 such that c is a minimum for f in [x1 , x0 ]. Now of course
c 6= x1 since f (x0 ) < f (x1 ).
Suppose c = x0 . Now, since x0 is a local minimum for f we have some δ > 0
such that for every x0 −δ < x < x0 +δ, f (x) ≤ f (x0 ). But since x0 = c, we must
have that for every x1 ≤ x ≤ x0 that f (x0 ) ≤ f (x). So for every x0 −δ < x < x0
we have that
f (x0 ) ≤ f (x) ≤ f (x0 )
Meaning f (x) = f (x0 ), and in particular, f is constant on (x0 − δ, x0 ). But
then any interior point of that interval (say x0 − δ/2) is a local maximum, a
contradiction to the given that there are no other extrema.
If c 6= x0 then c is an interior point of [x1 , x0 ] and therefore has a neighbor-
hood U ⊆ (x1 , x0 ) in which it’s a minimum, meaning c is a local minimum for
f , again a contradiction to the given that there are no other extrema besides
x0 . ■

4
Question 3
‫א‬
No.
Counterexample. Consider f (x) = x2 D(x) + x where D is Dirichlet’s function.
We proved last week that x 7→ x2 D(x) is differentiable only at 0 with the
derivative being zero, and of course the derivative of the identity at 0 is 1, hence
by the additivity of the derivative we have f 0 (0) = 0 + 1 = 1 > 0. Recall
that we also proved last week for any two functions g, h : R → R that if two
h is differentiable at a point x0 , and g + h is differentiable at x0 then g is
differentiable at x0 as well. So let x0 6= 0. Suppose for contradiction that
f is differentiable at x0 . Then since x is differentiable at x0 it follows that
x 7→ x2 D(x) is differentiable at 0 as well, a contradiction to what we proved last
week, that 0 is the only point where x 7→ x2 D(x) is differentiable. Thus there
can’t be a neighborhood of 0 where f is differentiable.
■

‫ב‬
No.
Counterexample. Take f from the last part. Let δ > 0. Denote δ0 = min{1, δ}.
By the density of the rationals and irrationals in the reals we have a rational
p ∈ (−δ0 , 0) and an irrational q ∈ (0, δ0 ). Then p < 0 < q but f (p) = p2 D(p) +
p = p2 + p = p(p + 1). Since p > −δ ≥ −1 we have p + 1 > 0 and hence
f (p) = p(p + 1) < 0. On the other hand f (q) = q 2 D(q) + q = q > 0 > f (p), and
so f is not increasing in (−δ, δ).
■

‫ג‬
Proof. h0 (x) > 0 means, by the definition of the derivative, that

h(x) − h(x0 )
lim >0
x→x0 x − x0
Meaning the limit is positive, and therefore there exists some punctured
neighborhood with radius δ > 0 around x0 in which

h(x) − h(x0 )
>0
x − x0
as well. Now for any x in that neighborhood for which x < x0 we have that
the denominator is negative and hence the numerator must be negative as well,
meaning h(x) < h(x0 ). If x > x0 the denominator is positive and hence the
numerator is as well, so h(x) > h(x0 ).
■

5
Question 4
Define f : [0, 1] → R as {
x x 6= 1
f (x) =
0 x=1
f is continuous on [0, 1) and differentiable on (0, 1) since for any x ∈ (0, 1)
f (x) = x, so the derivative of f at any x0 ∈ (0, 1) is 1. We also have f (0) =
f (1). This would contradict Rolle’s theorem if not for the discontinuity at 1.
Additionally the conclusion of Lagrange’s theorem doesn’t hold either, since

f (1) − f (0)
=0
1−0
but f 0 (c) > 0 for any c ∈ (0, 1).

6
Question 5
‫א‬
Proof. Since we know the limit exists in the wide sense, we simply need to
find one sequence that goes to ∞ whose derivative goes to 0, and by the Heine
characterisation that will imply that every sequence that explodes to ∞ has its
derivative going to 0.
Consider that the sequence an = n explodes to ∞ and hence by Heine f (an )
goes to 0, and similarly for bn = n + 1. Now consider the sequence cn defined as
follows: for every n ∈ N Lagrange’s theorem promises some an < cn < bn such
that

f (bn ) − f (an )
f 0 (cn ) = = f (bn ) − f (an )
bn − a n
Since an < cn and an explodes to ∞, by the bread slice theorem cn explodes
to ∞. And by limit arithmetic we have that f 0 (cn ) goes to 0. This proves what
we said at the start, there’s a sequence that explodes to ∞ whose derivative
goes to 0 and hence by Heine the limit of f 0 at ∞ must be 0. ■

‫ב‬
No.
Counterexample. Consider ln. ln0 (x) = x1 which of course goes to 0 as x → ∞.
But ln goes to ∞ as x → ∞, as we’ll now prove.
Let M ∈ R. Take X = exp(M ). Let x > X. We proved exp is strictly
monotonically increasing and hence so is its inverse, ln. Therefore

ln(x) > ln(X) = ln(exp(M )) = M

‫ג‬
Consider

sin(x2 )
f (x) =
x
We have

sin(x2 )
f 0 (x) = − + 2 cos(x2 )
x2
which does not converge as x → ∞ (proof omitted since the question is
optional).

7
Question 6
Proof. Recall that
1
tan0 =
cos2
We’ll use Lagrange’s theorem on [α, β] to get some point c ∈ (α, β) such that

1 tan(β) − tan(α)
= f 0 (c) =
cos2 (c) β−α
If we prove that tan0 is strictly monotonically increasing on [0, π/2) then
we’re done, since then
1 1 1
< <
cos2 (α) cos (c)
2 cos (β)
2

which is what we need to prove.

We’ll use the corollary from the lecture that if f is a function differentiable
on some open interval with a positive derivative then it’s strictly monotonically
increasing. And of course if a function is strictly increasing on an open interval
the it’s strictly increasing on the closed interval as well if it’s continuous at the
1
edges, which cos 2 is (at 0, not π/2 of course) by arithmetic of continuity.

So we have
1 0 2 sin x
( ) (x) =
cos 2 cos3 x
And since for x ∈ (0, π/2) we have sin x > 0 and cos x > 0 it follows that
1 0
( cos 2 ) (x) > 0. ■

Question 7
Proof.
sin t − sin x
∆sin,x (t) =
t−x
( ) ( )
2 sin t−x2 cos t+x
2
=
t−x
( t−x ) ( )
sin 2 t+x
= t−x · cos
2
2

Now, note that

t−x
lim =0
t→x 2
And sinx x 6= 0 in a small enough neighborhood of 0 and hence we can compose
these limits and get that

8
 ( t−x )
sin 2
lim t−x =0
t→x
2

And of course by arithmetic of continuity we have

( ) ( )
t+x x+x
lim cos = cos = cos x
t→x 2 2
and therefore

sin0 (x) = lim ∆sin,x = cos x

t→x