6
$\begingroup$

I am confused by the statement that a read, that says $f'(x_0)>0$ does not imply that $f$ is increasing in an open interval around $x_0$. But the book also mentions that if $f(x)$ is differentiable at $x_0$ and $f'(x_0)>0$ then there is $h>0$ such that for all $x_1,x_2\in(x_0-h,x_0+h)$ if $x_1<x_0<x_2$ then $f(x_1)<f(x_0)<f(x_2)$. I feel the statement contradicts one another. Any explanations will be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The first statement is right and the second statement is false. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/2768994/…. For the second statement, did the book not include the additional condition that $f'(x_0) > 0$ in an open interval around $x_0$? $\endgroup$ – twosigma Jan 18 at 0:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @twosigma The second starement is also correct and it follows by definition of $f'(x_0)$. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Jan 18 at 6:05
  • $\begingroup$ @KaviRamaMurthy You are correct. $\endgroup$ – twosigma Jan 18 at 6:51
5
$\begingroup$

In the second statement you cannot take $x_1$ and $x_2$ on the same side of $x_0$. Hence there is no contradiction.

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

The first statement is correct: see twosigma's comment.

Adding to Kavi's answer, the second statement says that $f$ is strictly increasing at the point $x_0$, but it does not say that $f$ is increasing in an open interval around $x_0$ (which it isn't necessarily).

$\endgroup$

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.