Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

While learning about limits and derivatives, I came accross the following problem on one of Stewart's exercises book. I've been trying to wrap my head around it but I haven't got anywhere useful:

  1. $ \forall x f''(x) $ exists
  2. $ \exists c \in \mathbb{R} $ / $\forall x \neq c, f'(x) > 0 \wedge f'(c) = 0 $
  3. Then, $(c, f(c))$ is an inflection point.

From this I can gather that:

  • $f$ is continuous
  • $f$ is increasing $\forall x \neq c$.

My intuition tells me that $(3)$ is false since I might be able to come up with a function defined by parts that contradicts the statement, but I haven't found a way to prove this. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question
    
In your "2.", should it be $\exists c \in \mathbb{R}$ (c, not x)? –  Isaac Sep 16 '10 at 21:02
    
@Isaac: I fixed it as such. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 16 '10 at 21:43

1 Answer 1

Because the second derivative exists everywhere, you also know that $f'$ is continuous everywhere. Now think about the function $f'(x)$; it is positive to the left and to the right of $c$, and is $0$ at $c$, and it is continuous. Does that tell you something about $f''$, and hence about concavity?

share|improve this answer
    
If the signs of $ f'' $ to the left and to the right were different (or equal) I could use the test of the second derivative to assert something about the concavity, but as far as I understand this is not the case (I can't imply anything about the signs of $ f'' $ from $ f' $). What am I missing here? –  Federico Builes Sep 16 '10 at 23:11
1  
@Federico: Notice that Arturo's answer doesn't really refer to $f$; it is entirely about $g = f'$ and $g' = f''$. If you re-read it in terms of $g$ (and also reread your conditions (1) and (2) in terms of $g$ and translate the definition of inflection point for $f$ in terms of a property of $g$), you are likely to find the assertion is familiar. –  whuber Sep 16 '10 at 23:32
    
@Federico: what you are missing is that $f''$ is just the derivative of $f'$; can you conclude something about the sign of $g'$ if you know stuff about $g$? That's what you have here. Or better: instead of thinking about concavity in terms of the second derivative, remember that there is a way to describe the concavity of $f$ in terms of $f'$; the fact that you can then explain it in terms of $f''$ is a consequence of the description in terms of $f'$. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 17 '10 at 3:47

Your Answer

 
discard

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.