1
$\begingroup$

If $|a(t)|\ll b$ is it alright to take $a\left({a\cdot \dot{a} \over b^2}\right)$ as $0$?

Would the following argument make sense?

I know that we can take $\left({a\cdot a \over b^2}\right)$ as $0$ and $0={d\over dt}\left({a\cdot a \over b^2}\right)=2\left({a\cdot \dot{a} \over b^2}\right)$.

So since $a$ is bounded by finite number (namely $b$) therefore $a\left({a\cdot \dot{a} \over b^2}\right)$ can be taken to be $0$.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No -- just because $a$ is small doesn't mean that $\dot a$ has to be. Just consider, for example, $a =b^2\sin(b^{-10})$ for $b\to 0$. $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Jul 6 '12 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ @HenningMakholm: Thank you! $\endgroup$ – renne Jul 6 '12 at 20:29
1
$\begingroup$

No, the smallness of function $a$ does not given any information about the size of $\dot a$. The derivative can take arbitrarily large values, if $a$ oscillates rapidly. Taking the idea of Henning Makholm's example, let $$a(t) = \epsilon b t^2 \sin(t^{-10}) \tag1$$ where $\epsilon$ can be as small as you wish. The derivative of (1) exists at all $t$: it is $0$ when $t=0$, and $$\dot a(t) = 2\epsilon b t \sin(t^{-10}) - 10 \epsilon b t^{-9}\cos(t^{-10}),\quad t\ne 0 \tag2$$ The formula (2) shows that $\dot a$ is unbounded in any neghborhood of (2).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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