Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If $f(x)$ is strictly convex, and

$$\lim_{x\to \infty}\left(f(x) - x - ue^{x}\right) = w$$

for some $u\ge 0$ and $w$ then what can be said about:

$$g(x) = ve^{-x} + f(x)$$

on $x\ge0$ where $v$ is some fixed real number. Can I say that it has exactly one minimum?

share|cite|improve this question
Do you mean to assume that $\lim_{x \to infty} \left( f(x) - x - ue^x\right) = 0$? – Hans Engler Nov 24 '12 at 16:06
Yes, thanks for the correction. – Neil G Nov 24 '12 at 16:06
If you mean that the limit is $0$ you should fix the question by replacing "limit = w" by "limit = $0$". – coffeemath Nov 24 '12 at 22:12
@coffeemath: I meant $w$, but I don't think it makes any difference? – Neil G Nov 24 '12 at 22:58
Yes, no difference, it's just a constant and drops out of the derivative. In a comment above your "yes, thanks for the correction" led me to believe you meant limit = 0. – coffeemath Nov 25 '12 at 10:39

Let $f(x)=x+e^x+0$ (taking $w=0$ from your statement) and $v=1$ so that $$g(x)=e^{-x}+x+e^x.$$ Then $g(x)$ has exactly one minimum, but not on $x \ge 0$, and numerically the min of $g(x)$ is at the point $(-0.482,1.754)$. Replacing the $0$ by an arbitrary $w$ just shifts this example up or down, with the same negative $x$ value at which the minimum occurs.

Now for another example let $v=-1$ (and $w=0$ again) so that this time $$g(x)=-e^{-x}+x+e^x.$$ This function has no minimum at all, not even a local minimum.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.