3

I'm just started learning standard Calculus class in the university (It treats James Stewart's "Essential Calculus: Early transcendentals" for 1 semester, just letting you know) and I got some questions about the relationship between 'differentiability of a function' (i.e.the existence of $f'(a)$ regarding $x = a$) and 'continuity of a derivative of function'.

I made a derivative of a function on my own, which is

$$f'(x)=\begin{cases}-x + 2 & x<0, \\ 1 & x=0, \\ -x & x>0. \end{cases}$$

I said the integral constant $C = 0$ arbitrarily for convenience. Because $f'$ is defined at every $R$, then $f$ is continuous at every $R$ by theorem (don't remember the number of it...) By integrating $f'$ at every interval, then we get

$$f(x)=\begin{cases} -x^2/2 + 2x & x<0, \\ 0 & x=0, \\ -x^2/2 & x>0. \end{cases}$$

But by using the definition of $f'(0)$ and given $f(x)$, we have to say that $f'(0)$ doesn't exist! So this was a contradiction. I asked about this in my country's internet community, but the answers were the following.

"If $f'(a)$ exists, and $f'$ is not continuous at a, then there are 2 types.

  1. Both left and right limit of $f'$ at $x = a$ exists but $f'$ is not continuous at $a$

  2. Either left or right limit of $f'$ at $x = a$ doesn't exist, so $f'$ is not continuous at $a$.

$f'$ is only available at type 2.

I just accepted with no excuse, but after few days, I just wanted to know some prove about this.

I read about this but as I said before, I just started Calculus, so it was too hard for me to understand some comments at there.

I am not American or British, so I'm not very good at English and sorry about that.

Question is that could somebody prove that "if $f'(a)$ exists and $f'$ is discontinuous at $x = a$, then left-hand or right-hand limit of $f'$ at $x = a$ doesn't exist."

Thx for reading this awful long writing.

Paul Frost
  • 68,776
  • 11
  • 36
  • 116
shlee
  • 31
  • 1
  • if f'(a) exists and f' is discontinuous at x = a, then left-hand or right-hand limit of f' at x = a doesn't exist. You need an example for this? – Vyom Yadav Apr 02 '21 at 07:49
  • 1
    Welcome to MSE. For some basic information about writing mathematics at this site see, *e.g.*, [basic help on mathjax notation](/help/notation), [mathjax tutorial and quick reference](//math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020), [main meta site math tutorial](//meta.stackexchange.com/a/70559) and [equation editing how-to](//math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1773). – José Carlos Santos Apr 02 '21 at 07:51
  • Thx very much guys. I really didn't expect this much kindness. In fact, by discussing with my calculus professor yesterday, I knew that "if \lim_{x\to a+} f'(x) = A, \lim_{x\to a-} f'(x) = B and A\neqB, then f'(a) doesn't exist" by using similar method(M.V.T.) as the site @HansLundmark Lundmark attached. Now I'm curious about the following saying. "If f'(a) exists and f'(x) is not continuous at x = a, then neither \lim_{x\to a+} f'(x) nor \lim_{x\to a-} f'(x) doesn't exist.". – shlee Apr 03 '21 at 05:20
  • Lastly, I thought I could solve this problem by 'not using any hard stuff(real analysis, set theorem, etc. I don't even know what these disciplines talk about..)', but now I think I should study some of them. I think I couldn't solve this curiosity with the things I have learned until now... – shlee Apr 03 '21 at 05:25
  • I wrote the math symbols in code, but they just popped out without changing.. I think I should learn more about writing.. sorry for the disturbance. – shlee Apr 03 '21 at 05:27
  • @shlee: What you want to prove is equivalent to what's proved in the question I linked to. (Since “A implies B” is equivalent to “not B implies not A”.) – Hans Lundmark Apr 03 '21 at 08:27

2 Answers2

1

The answer you quoted in your question is nonsense. Here is a well-known fact for a given function $f$:

If $f'(a)$ exists, then both left and right derivatives $f'_-(a)$ and $f'_+(a)$ exist and we have $f'(a) = f'_-(a) = f'_+(a)$.
If both $f'_-(a)$ and $f'_+(a)$ exist and $f'_-(a) = f'_+(a)$, then $f'(a)$ exists.

Two obvious consequences are:

  1. If one of $f'_-(a)$ and $f'_+(a)$ does not exist, then $f'(a)$ does not exist.

  2. If both $f'_-(a)$ and $f'_+(a)$ exist and $f'_-(a) \ne f'_+(a)$, then $f'(a)$ does not exist.

The continuity of $f'$ in $a$ does not have anything to do with $f'_-(a)$ and $f'_+(a)$. First note that to speak about the continuity of $f'$ in $a$ requires that $f'(x)$ exists in some open interval containing $a$, and this is not guaranteed by the mere existence of $f'(a)$. But even if that is satisfied, the continuity of $f'$ in $a$ is an additional feature.

Let us look at your $f'$. First you should not write $f'$ because this suggests that your function is the derivative of some $f$ which you cannot know to be true without a proof. So write $g$ instead of $f'$ and ask

Is $g$ the derivative of some $f$?

As you have shown, the answer is "no". But this has nothing to do with the discontinuity of $g$ in $0$. There are examples of discontinuous functions appearing as derivatives. See malklera kwezibalo's answer.

The function $f$ which you found is continuous and has a (continuous) derivative in all $a \ne 0$. Moreover, $f'_-(0)$ and $f'_+(0)$ exist, but are different. Thus $f'(0)$ does not exist.

Paul Frost
  • 68,776
  • 11
  • 36
  • 116
  • Why is nonsense? How do you define $f'(a)$? Isn't it the limit of $f(a+h)-f(a)/h$ for $h\to 0$? because if $f'(a)$ is defined in that way, my computation show that the limit exist, hence $f'(a)$. Could you explain better, please? – malklera kwezibalo Apr 03 '21 at 22:05
  • @malklerakwezibalo I did not claim that **your** answer is nonsense, but the answer quoted by the OP: "I asked about this in my country's internet community, but the answers were the following." I made an update to clarify this point. I am sorry that the previous version led to a misunderstanding. – Paul Frost Apr 03 '21 at 22:57
  • I have now a problem with your first statement. The example in my answer is a function where $f'(0)$ exists, the derivative exists also for all $x\in (-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ but the function $f'$ is not continuous in $0$. However, your first sentence claims that such a function does not exist. – malklera kwezibalo Apr 05 '21 at 22:30
  • @malklerakwezibalo No, I explained the relation between $f'(a), f'_+(a), f'_-(a)$. As I said, there is no connection to the continuity of $f'$ in the point $a$. Quotation from the question: "If $f'(a)$ exists, and $f'$ is not continuous at a, then there are 2 types. 1. Both left and right limit of $f'$ at $x = a$ exists but $f'$ is not continuous at $a$ . 2. Either left or right limit of $f'$ at $x = a$ doesn't exist, so $f'$ is not continuous at $a$." This is nonsense. – Paul Frost Apr 05 '21 at 22:46
0

Consider the function $f\colon\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ given by $x\mapsto x^2\sin(\frac{1}{x})$. This function is continuos in $x=0$ because $\lim_{x\to0}f(x)=0$.

The derivative for $x\neq0$ is $$f'(x)=2x\sin(\frac{1}{x}) - x^2\cos(\frac{1}{x})\frac{1}{x^2}=2x\sin(\frac{1}{x}) - \cos(\frac{1}{x})\qquad x\neq0$$ and $f'(x)$ do not exists on $x=0$. However, doing the limit of incremental you have $$\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(0+h)}{h}=\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{h^2\sin(\frac{1}{h})}{h}=\lim_{h\to 0}h\sin(\frac{1}{h})=0$$ because $-1<\sin(\alpha)\leq1$ is bounded and $h\to0$.

  • I know that is one kind of an example, but I want to know some kind of proof about that.. – shlee Apr 02 '21 at 08:03
  • @shlee Maybe this answer your question? https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2332932/909032 – malklera kwezibalo Apr 02 '21 at 23:45
  • Well... I don't know Darboux's theorem, so I think I should study that at first. I thought I could solve(prove) this problem by using just simple calculus knowledge, but I think that was just a misunderstanding. – shlee Apr 03 '21 at 05:36
  • $f''(0)$ exists as you have shown. But $f'$ is not continuous at $0$. – Paul Frost Apr 03 '21 at 10:37
  • @PaulFrost you mean "$f'(0)$ exists". I never write about a second derivative. – malklera kwezibalo Apr 03 '21 at 22:02
  • @malklerakwezibalo Yes, it was a typo. You have shown that $f'(0)$ exists and has value $0$. But this contradicts your statement "$f′(x)$ does not exists on $x=0$". What is clear is that $\lim_{x\to 0} f'(x)$ does not exist. – Paul Frost Apr 03 '21 at 22:52