1
$\begingroup$

Question : Check derivability at point x=0 $$f(x) = \begin{cases} x & \text{if $x \in Q$} \\ \sin x & \text{if $x \notin Q$} \end{cases}$$

Here's my solution:

if $x \in Q$ $$\underset{x\to 0 }{\mathop{\lim }} \frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}=\underset{x\to 0 }{\mathop{\lim }} \frac{x-0}{x-0}=1$$

if $x \notin Q$ $$\underset{x\to 0 }{\mathop{\lim }} \frac{f(x)-f(0)}{x-0}=\underset{x\to 0 }{\mathop{\lim }} \frac{\sin x}{x}=1$$

we conclude that $f'(0) = 1.$

Why do sometime we need to check the continuity at $0$ first before proving that is derivable at $0$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Presumably, your "$x$" here is actually supposed to be a sequence $x_n$. Is that what you meant to write? $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Aug 2 '16 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ no... I guess I make a mistake $\endgroup$ – Elina Aug 2 '16 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ So, if $x$ is just real number, then what is the role of $n$ here? $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Aug 2 '16 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ 'Why do sometime we need to check the continuity at 0 first before proving that is derivable at 0?' Differentiability implies continuity. Therefore, if function is discontinuous at 0, we can conclude that it is not differentiable at 0. $\endgroup$ – alans Aug 2 '16 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ Did you mean to say as $x$ tends to 0 maybe? $x$ tending to infinity doesn't seem right here and you still have $n$ in your post $\endgroup$ – m1cky22 Aug 2 '16 at 19:17
1
$\begingroup$

Note that (by definition) the derivative of this function is given by $$ f'(0) = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{f(x) - f(0)}{x} $$ so to show that $f'(0) = 1$, it suffices to show that for any sequence $x_n \to 0$, we have $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{f(x_n) - f(0)}{x_n} = 1 $$ What you can show with the steps you describe is that for any sequence $(x_n)_{n \in \Bbb N} \subset \Bbb Q$ or $(x_n)_{n \in \Bbb N} \subset (\Bbb R \setminus \Bbb Q)$, we have the desired equality. What you have failed to address, however, is the general case in which the sequence $(x_n)$ consists of both rational and irrational elements.

As for continuity: saying that $f$ is continuous at zero is equivalent to proving that $$ \lim_{x \to 0} \;[f(x) - f(0)] = 0 $$ that is, the limit of our limit's numerator is zero. This is a necessary condition for differentiability. That is, it is impossible for $f$ to be differentiable at $x = 0$ without also being continuous at $x = 0$. It is not clear to me, however, that proving continuity should necessarily be the first step of this proof.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So if I understand correctly is that , i need to show 3 cases of derivability : $x\in Q$ , $x\notin Q$ and $x \in R$ ? To show the derivability of $x\in R$, I need to check the continuity at point 0 and then proove that the limit is 1 with the definition $\epsilon $ $\delta$ limit $\endgroup$ – Elina Aug 2 '16 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ There's that notation again! What is $x\in Q$ supposed to mean? You could mean three possible things that could bear relevance to this question: 1: you could be referring to a sequence $(x_n) \subset \Bbb Q$. 2: you might be considering the restriction of $f$ to the domain of $\Bbb Q$. 3: you might be considering a net in $\Bbb Q$. I assumed you are really thinking about the first one, but maybe you meant the second. I highly doubt you mean the third. Could you please clarify what you are trying to say with $x \in \Bbb Q$? $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Aug 2 '16 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ number 2 , the domain is in Q $\endgroup$ – Elina Aug 2 '16 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, well that makes a bit more sense now. In that case, yes: you have the right idea. The idea, when going through the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ proof, is to note that for a particular $\epsilon > 0$, there is a $\delta_1$ that works for the restriction of $f$ to $\Bbb Q$, and there is a $\delta_2$ that works for the restriction of $f$ to $\Bbb R \setminus \Bbb Q$. It suffices, for the purposes of the overall proof, to take $\delta = \min\{\delta_1,\delta_2\}$. The way I see it, it is not necessary to prove that $f$ is continuous at $0$, though. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Aug 2 '16 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ ok thx for your help :) $\endgroup$ – Elina Aug 2 '16 at 19:53

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.