1
$\begingroup$

Let a power function $f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ be defined by $ f(x) = x^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha >1$.

From my own understanding, this function $f(x) = x^{\alpha}$ is differentiable on $[ 0, \infty)$ with its first derivative $f'(x) = \alpha x^{\alpha-1}$ for all $x \in [ 0, \infty)$. Moreover, the derivative function $f'(x) = \alpha x^{\alpha-1}$ is continuous on $ [ 0, \infty)$. So, I think the function $f$ is continuously differentiable on $ [ 0, \infty)$.

Is it true?

On the other hand, I thought that if $f$ is continuously differentiable on $ [ 0, \infty)$, then $f$ should also be Lipschitz continuous on $[0, \infty)$. However, $f$ is not Lipschitz continuous on $[0, \infty)$, even for $(0,\infty)$. Thus, from this point of view, I thought $f$ might not be continuously differentiable on $[0, \infty)$.

Could anyone help explain this question? Also, when the function $f$ is Lipschitz continuous? And, when the function $f$ is continuously differentiable?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A function can be continuously differentiable without being Lipschitz continuous. Take for example $f(x)=x^2$. $\endgroup$ – TonyK Apr 3 '17 at 1:02
  • $\begingroup$ Having said that, I can't quite understand your problem: your $f$ is Lipschitz continuous on $[0,c]$ for every $c > 0$. $\endgroup$ – TonyK Apr 3 '17 at 1:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @TonyK. You are right, since for Lipschitz continuous, we need extra condition that the derivative $f'(x)$ should be bounded. Apparently, $f'(x)$ is not bounded on $[0, \infty)$. $\endgroup$ – Paradiesvogel Apr 3 '17 at 1:10
0
$\begingroup$

Over a closed and bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}$, every continuously differentiable function is Lipschitz. In your case the domain is not bounded, so you cannot make this claim. That is, in your question $f$ is continuously differentiable but not Lipschitz, and this is not breaking maths per se.

Suppose $g:[0,5] \rightarrow [0, 5^a]$ is defined by $g(x) = x^a, a > 1$.

Then $g$ is continuously differentiable as you noted before. However, it is also Lipschitz. Can you prove this?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, you are right. I think I mess the definitions about "differentiable at $x$" implies "continuous at $x$" with the definitions about "differentiable on a set (interval) $I$ ". $\endgroup$ – Paradiesvogel Apr 3 '17 at 1:19

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.