2
$\begingroup$

I am working on a proof and I have stumbled in the following question. Consider a continuously differentiable bounded function $f(t)$ with bounded, uniformly continuous derivative defined in $[0,\infty)$ with the property that $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left[f(t)\dot{f}(t)\right]=0.$$

Is the claim $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}|f(t+T)-f(t)|=0\qquad\qquad (1)$$ true for all finite $T>0$ ?

My attempt: Since $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{d}{dt}\left[f^2(t)\right]=2\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}f(t)\dot{f}(t)=0$$ we directly obtain from the mean value theorem that $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\left[f^2(t+T)-f^2(t)\right]=0$$ for all finite $T>0$. I believe that now using continuity of $f$ and the fact that the above limit holds for all $T>0$ will maybe suffice to prove (1) but I am somehow missing the final link.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is bad... where is the "uniformness" applied in here? There is only one function, not a set of functions in where to apply uniform boundness. $\endgroup$ – Brethlosze Sep 5 '17 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ @hyprfrcb My bad..bounded, will edit! $\endgroup$ – RTJ Sep 5 '17 at 21:13
0
$\begingroup$

Ok this appears to be true. It follows directly from the claim $$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\dot{f}(t)=0$$ We can prove this by contradiction. If this is not true, then there exists some $\epsilon>0$ and a sequence of times $\{t_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ with $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}t_i=+\infty$ such that $$\dot{f}(t)>\epsilon \qquad \forall t\in[t_i,t_i+\delta(\epsilon)]\qquad \qquad (1)$$ or $$\dot{f}(t)<-\epsilon \qquad \forall t\in[t_i,t_i+\delta(\epsilon)] \qquad \qquad (2)$$ Without loss of generality we proceed with the first case (1). Then, due to $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}f(t)\dot{f}(t)=0$ there exists $i_0$ sufficiently large such that $$|f(t)\dot{f}(t)|<\frac{\delta(\epsilon)\epsilon^2}{2} \quad \forall t\in[t_i,t_i+\delta(\epsilon)], \: \forall i\geq i_0$$ or equivalently $$|f(t)|< \frac{\delta(\epsilon)\epsilon^2}{2\dot{f}(t)}<\frac{\delta(\epsilon)\epsilon}{2}\quad \forall t\in[t_i,t_i+\delta(\epsilon)], \: \forall i\geq i_0 \qquad \qquad (3)$$

Using (1), (3) we obtain $$f(t_i+\delta(\epsilon))>f(t_i)+\epsilon\delta(\epsilon)>-\frac{\delta(\epsilon)\epsilon}{2}+\epsilon\delta(\epsilon)=\frac{\delta(\epsilon)\epsilon}{2} \quad \forall i\geq i_0$$ which is a contradiction to (3). This completes the proof.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $f(t)f'(t)\to 0$ imply $f'(t)\to 0$ or $f(t)\to 0$. A trivial case is missing... $\endgroup$ – Brethlosze Sep 6 '17 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ @hyprfrcb How is this directly obtained? I can't see it. If $f_1f_2\rightarrow 0$ then that does not mean that $f_1\rightarrow 0$ or $f_2\rightarrow 0$. $\endgroup$ – RTJ Sep 6 '17 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ Both functions are bounded, so the proposition should hold; it is easy to figure a function with $f'(t)=f_0$ and $f(t) \to 0$, which requires that case to be covered. $\endgroup$ – Brethlosze Sep 7 '17 at 14:26

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.