Is $f$ differentiable at $0$, where $f(x) = x$ if $x$ is rational and $f(x) = 0$ otherwise?
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
This is the function:
$$f(x)=begin{cases}x& text{if $x$ is rational}\0 &text{if $x$ is irrational}end{cases}$$
My attempt:
It's easy to verify that $f$ is continuous at $x=0$ using the sequential definition of continuity. I claim that $f$ is not differentiable at $x=0$. Assume the contrary and let $f'(0)=L$. Now, we pick an $varepsilon$ such that $0<varepsilon < |L|$. For this choice of $varepsilon$ there is a $delta >0$ such that if $0<|x-0|<delta$ then we have $left| frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0} -Lright| < varepsilon $. Now, pick $x' in mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$ with $0<|x'| <delta$. Then we have $left| frac{f(x')-f(0)}{x'-0} -Lright| = |L| > varepsilon$. A contradiction!
Is this proof correct?
real-analysis derivatives
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
This is the function:
$$f(x)=begin{cases}x& text{if $x$ is rational}\0 &text{if $x$ is irrational}end{cases}$$
My attempt:
It's easy to verify that $f$ is continuous at $x=0$ using the sequential definition of continuity. I claim that $f$ is not differentiable at $x=0$. Assume the contrary and let $f'(0)=L$. Now, we pick an $varepsilon$ such that $0<varepsilon < |L|$. For this choice of $varepsilon$ there is a $delta >0$ such that if $0<|x-0|<delta$ then we have $left| frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0} -Lright| < varepsilon $. Now, pick $x' in mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$ with $0<|x'| <delta$. Then we have $left| frac{f(x')-f(0)}{x'-0} -Lright| = |L| > varepsilon$. A contradiction!
Is this proof correct?
real-analysis derivatives
2
The proof looks correct to me.
– b00n heT
Sep 30 at 7:17
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function
– georg
Sep 30 at 7:27
@b00nheT. The $<$ in the last line should have been $>$ (a typo) so I fixed it. But the flaw is assuming $Lne 0$. The proposer has only shown that if $f'(0)=L$ exists then $L=0.$ But $f'(0$) does not exist
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:05
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct, thanks for pointing it out. My bad for missing it! I've added the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:16
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
This is the function:
$$f(x)=begin{cases}x& text{if $x$ is rational}\0 &text{if $x$ is irrational}end{cases}$$
My attempt:
It's easy to verify that $f$ is continuous at $x=0$ using the sequential definition of continuity. I claim that $f$ is not differentiable at $x=0$. Assume the contrary and let $f'(0)=L$. Now, we pick an $varepsilon$ such that $0<varepsilon < |L|$. For this choice of $varepsilon$ there is a $delta >0$ such that if $0<|x-0|<delta$ then we have $left| frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0} -Lright| < varepsilon $. Now, pick $x' in mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$ with $0<|x'| <delta$. Then we have $left| frac{f(x')-f(0)}{x'-0} -Lright| = |L| > varepsilon$. A contradiction!
Is this proof correct?
real-analysis derivatives
This is the function:
$$f(x)=begin{cases}x& text{if $x$ is rational}\0 &text{if $x$ is irrational}end{cases}$$
My attempt:
It's easy to verify that $f$ is continuous at $x=0$ using the sequential definition of continuity. I claim that $f$ is not differentiable at $x=0$. Assume the contrary and let $f'(0)=L$. Now, we pick an $varepsilon$ such that $0<varepsilon < |L|$. For this choice of $varepsilon$ there is a $delta >0$ such that if $0<|x-0|<delta$ then we have $left| frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0} -Lright| < varepsilon $. Now, pick $x' in mathbb{R}setminusmathbb{Q}$ with $0<|x'| <delta$. Then we have $left| frac{f(x')-f(0)}{x'-0} -Lright| = |L| > varepsilon$. A contradiction!
Is this proof correct?
real-analysis derivatives
real-analysis derivatives
edited Nov 17 at 6:59
DanielWainfleet
33.5k31647
33.5k31647
asked Sep 30 at 7:14
Ashish K
775513
775513
2
The proof looks correct to me.
– b00n heT
Sep 30 at 7:17
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function
– georg
Sep 30 at 7:27
@b00nheT. The $<$ in the last line should have been $>$ (a typo) so I fixed it. But the flaw is assuming $Lne 0$. The proposer has only shown that if $f'(0)=L$ exists then $L=0.$ But $f'(0$) does not exist
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:05
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct, thanks for pointing it out. My bad for missing it! I've added the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:16
add a comment |
2
The proof looks correct to me.
– b00n heT
Sep 30 at 7:17
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function
– georg
Sep 30 at 7:27
@b00nheT. The $<$ in the last line should have been $>$ (a typo) so I fixed it. But the flaw is assuming $Lne 0$. The proposer has only shown that if $f'(0)=L$ exists then $L=0.$ But $f'(0$) does not exist
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:05
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct, thanks for pointing it out. My bad for missing it! I've added the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:16
2
2
The proof looks correct to me.
– b00n heT
Sep 30 at 7:17
The proof looks correct to me.
– b00n heT
Sep 30 at 7:17
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function
– georg
Sep 30 at 7:27
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function
– georg
Sep 30 at 7:27
@b00nheT. The $<$ in the last line should have been $>$ (a typo) so I fixed it. But the flaw is assuming $Lne 0$. The proposer has only shown that if $f'(0)=L$ exists then $L=0.$ But $f'(0$) does not exist
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:05
@b00nheT. The $<$ in the last line should have been $>$ (a typo) so I fixed it. But the flaw is assuming $Lne 0$. The proposer has only shown that if $f'(0)=L$ exists then $L=0.$ But $f'(0$) does not exist
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:05
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct, thanks for pointing it out. My bad for missing it! I've added the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:16
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct, thanks for pointing it out. My bad for missing it! I've added the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
EDIT: As @DanielWainfleet pointed out in the comments, your proof does not apply in the case $L=0$. The proof basically goes exactly like the one you have written: first you choose an $0<varepsilon<1$ small enough, then you take $delta$ as you please and look at the difference quotient for any $|x|<delta$. If $f$ was differentiable, then it should hold that
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|<varepsilon$$
but by density of the irrationals, you can find an irrational $x$ such that $|x|<delta$ and for that one
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|=left|frac{x-0}{x-0}right|=1>varepsilon$$
contradicting the assumption.
Another working approach is showing that approaching $0$ via irrationals and via rationals leads to different difference quotients:
Indeed :
- choose a sequence of irrational numbers ($a_n=sqrt{2}/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=0$ for all $n$
- choose a sequence of rational numbers ($a_n=1/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=1$ for all $n$
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
EDIT: As @DanielWainfleet pointed out in the comments, your proof does not apply in the case $L=0$. The proof basically goes exactly like the one you have written: first you choose an $0<varepsilon<1$ small enough, then you take $delta$ as you please and look at the difference quotient for any $|x|<delta$. If $f$ was differentiable, then it should hold that
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|<varepsilon$$
but by density of the irrationals, you can find an irrational $x$ such that $|x|<delta$ and for that one
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|=left|frac{x-0}{x-0}right|=1>varepsilon$$
contradicting the assumption.
Another working approach is showing that approaching $0$ via irrationals and via rationals leads to different difference quotients:
Indeed :
- choose a sequence of irrational numbers ($a_n=sqrt{2}/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=0$ for all $n$
- choose a sequence of rational numbers ($a_n=1/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=1$ for all $n$
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
EDIT: As @DanielWainfleet pointed out in the comments, your proof does not apply in the case $L=0$. The proof basically goes exactly like the one you have written: first you choose an $0<varepsilon<1$ small enough, then you take $delta$ as you please and look at the difference quotient for any $|x|<delta$. If $f$ was differentiable, then it should hold that
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|<varepsilon$$
but by density of the irrationals, you can find an irrational $x$ such that $|x|<delta$ and for that one
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|=left|frac{x-0}{x-0}right|=1>varepsilon$$
contradicting the assumption.
Another working approach is showing that approaching $0$ via irrationals and via rationals leads to different difference quotients:
Indeed :
- choose a sequence of irrational numbers ($a_n=sqrt{2}/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=0$ for all $n$
- choose a sequence of rational numbers ($a_n=1/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=1$ for all $n$
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
EDIT: As @DanielWainfleet pointed out in the comments, your proof does not apply in the case $L=0$. The proof basically goes exactly like the one you have written: first you choose an $0<varepsilon<1$ small enough, then you take $delta$ as you please and look at the difference quotient for any $|x|<delta$. If $f$ was differentiable, then it should hold that
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|<varepsilon$$
but by density of the irrationals, you can find an irrational $x$ such that $|x|<delta$ and for that one
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|=left|frac{x-0}{x-0}right|=1>varepsilon$$
contradicting the assumption.
Another working approach is showing that approaching $0$ via irrationals and via rationals leads to different difference quotients:
Indeed :
- choose a sequence of irrational numbers ($a_n=sqrt{2}/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=0$ for all $n$
- choose a sequence of rational numbers ($a_n=1/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=1$ for all $n$
EDIT: As @DanielWainfleet pointed out in the comments, your proof does not apply in the case $L=0$. The proof basically goes exactly like the one you have written: first you choose an $0<varepsilon<1$ small enough, then you take $delta$ as you please and look at the difference quotient for any $|x|<delta$. If $f$ was differentiable, then it should hold that
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|<varepsilon$$
but by density of the irrationals, you can find an irrational $x$ such that $|x|<delta$ and for that one
$$left|frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}right|=left|frac{x-0}{x-0}right|=1>varepsilon$$
contradicting the assumption.
Another working approach is showing that approaching $0$ via irrationals and via rationals leads to different difference quotients:
Indeed :
- choose a sequence of irrational numbers ($a_n=sqrt{2}/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=0$ for all $n$
- choose a sequence of rational numbers ($a_n=1/n$) tending to zero. Then $frac{f(a_n)-0}{a_n-0}=1$ for all $n$
edited Nov 17 at 8:15
answered Sep 30 at 7:20
b00n heT
10.2k12134
10.2k12134
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
add a comment |
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
The flaw in the proposer's proof is assuming that if $L$ exists then $Lne 0.$ If $L=0$ then we cannot take any $epsilon$ such that $0<epsilon <|L|.$
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:07
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct. My bad for missing it! I'll add the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:08
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
Much of performance-magic depends on how easily we make or overlook unwarranted assumptions.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 11:34
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2936349%2fis-f-differentiable-at-0-where-fx-x-if-x-is-rational-and-fx-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
The proof looks correct to me.
– b00n heT
Sep 30 at 7:17
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowhere_continuous_function
– georg
Sep 30 at 7:27
@b00nheT. The $<$ in the last line should have been $>$ (a typo) so I fixed it. But the flaw is assuming $Lne 0$. The proposer has only shown that if $f'(0)=L$ exists then $L=0.$ But $f'(0$) does not exist
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 7:05
@DanielWainfleet You are indeed correct, thanks for pointing it out. My bad for missing it! I've added the correction in my answer
– b00n heT
Nov 17 at 8:16