Prove that $f(x)=xsin(1/x)$ for $xne0$, $f(0)=0$, is not Lipschitz on $[0,1]$












0














Prove that $f(x)=cases{0& if $x=0$\xsin(1/x)& otherwise,}$ is not Lipschitz on $[0,1]$



MY TRIAL



My idea is to show that $f$ does not have a bounded derivative.



So, suppose for contradiction that there exists $K>0$ such that
$$left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|=left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq K |x|,;forall;xin [0,1].$$
As $xto 0$,
begin{align}limlimits_{xto 0}left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|&=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|,end{align}
which implies that begin{align}+infty=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|=0,;;text{contradiction.}end{align}
Please, I'm I right? Any other way of showing this is also accepted.






real-analysis analysis uniform-continuity lipschitz-functions







share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    Prove that $f(x)=cases{0& if $x=0$\xsin(1/x)& otherwise,}$ is not Lipschitz on $[0,1]$



    MY TRIAL



    My idea is to show that $f$ does not have a bounded derivative.



    So, suppose for contradiction that there exists $K>0$ such that
    $$left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|=left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq K |x|,;forall;xin [0,1].$$
    As $xto 0$,
    begin{align}limlimits_{xto 0}left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|&=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|,end{align}
    which implies that begin{align}+infty=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|=0,;;text{contradiction.}end{align}
    Please, I'm I right? Any other way of showing this is also accepted.






    real-analysis analysis uniform-continuity lipschitz-functions







    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0


      1





      Prove that $f(x)=cases{0& if $x=0$\xsin(1/x)& otherwise,}$ is not Lipschitz on $[0,1]$



      MY TRIAL



      My idea is to show that $f$ does not have a bounded derivative.



      So, suppose for contradiction that there exists $K>0$ such that
      $$left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|=left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq K |x|,;forall;xin [0,1].$$
      As $xto 0$,
      begin{align}limlimits_{xto 0}left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|&=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|,end{align}
      which implies that begin{align}+infty=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|=0,;;text{contradiction.}end{align}
      Please, I'm I right? Any other way of showing this is also accepted.






      real-analysis analysis uniform-continuity lipschitz-functions







      share|cite|improve this question















      Prove that $f(x)=cases{0& if $x=0$\xsin(1/x)& otherwise,}$ is not Lipschitz on $[0,1]$



      MY TRIAL



      My idea is to show that $f$ does not have a bounded derivative.



      So, suppose for contradiction that there exists $K>0$ such that
      $$left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|=left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq K |x|,;forall;xin [0,1].$$
      As $xto 0$,
      begin{align}limlimits_{xto 0}left| f'(x)-f'(0)right|&=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|,end{align}
      which implies that begin{align}+infty=limlimits_{xto 0}left| sinleft(frac{1}{x}right)-frac{1}{x}cosleft(frac{1}{x}right)right|leq Klimlimits_{xto 0} |x|=0,;;text{contradiction.}end{align}
      Please, I'm I right? Any other way of showing this is also accepted.






      real-analysis analysis uniform-continuity lipschitz-functions




      real-analysis analysis uniform-continuity lipschitz-functions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago







      Mike

















      asked 2 days ago









      MikeMike

      1,534321




      1,534321






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          $fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)=frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}(-1)^n.$ So, for any $C>0$ $left|fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)-fleft(frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}right)right|=frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}+frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}=frac{8n}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}> Cfrac{4}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}=Cleft|frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}-frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right|$



          for $n>C.$ So, $f$ can't be Lipschitz.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Oh, at what point?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Alright, let me edit it.
            – Mike
            2 days ago



















          1














          $f'(0)$ does not exist so your approach won't work. But the idea is correct:



          You want to show that $frac{|f(x) - f(y)|}{|x - y|}$ is unbounded in $[0,1].$



          Now, it is a question of choosing judiciously a sequence for which the quotient blows up. It appears that the problem is at $0$ so it makes sense to try a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_nto 0.$ But in such a way that the numerator is bounded away from $0$ while the denominator gets small. So, looking at $frac{|xsin(1/x)-ysin(1/y)|}{|x - y|}$, we might try $x_n = frac{1}{2 pi n + pi/2}\$ because then the sines are equal to $1$. I'll leave it to you to find $y_nin [0,1]$ that gives us what we want.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            Thanks for that, Matematleta!
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You are welcome!
            – Matematleta
            2 days ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062770%2fprove-that-fx-x-sin1-x-for-x-ne0-f0-0-is-not-lipschitz-on-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          $fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)=frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}(-1)^n.$ So, for any $C>0$ $left|fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)-fleft(frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}right)right|=frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}+frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}=frac{8n}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}> Cfrac{4}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}=Cleft|frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}-frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right|$



          for $n>C.$ So, $f$ can't be Lipschitz.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Oh, at what point?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Alright, let me edit it.
            – Mike
            2 days ago
















          1














          $fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)=frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}(-1)^n.$ So, for any $C>0$ $left|fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)-fleft(frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}right)right|=frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}+frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}=frac{8n}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}> Cfrac{4}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}=Cleft|frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}-frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right|$



          for $n>C.$ So, $f$ can't be Lipschitz.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Oh, at what point?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Alright, let me edit it.
            – Mike
            2 days ago














          1












          1








          1






          $fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)=frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}(-1)^n.$ So, for any $C>0$ $left|fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)-fleft(frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}right)right|=frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}+frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}=frac{8n}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}> Cfrac{4}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}=Cleft|frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}-frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right|$



          for $n>C.$ So, $f$ can't be Lipschitz.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          $fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)=frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}(-1)^n.$ So, for any $C>0$ $left|fleft(frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right)-fleft(frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}right)right|=frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}+frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}=frac{8n}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}> Cfrac{4}{(2n+1)(2n-1)pi}=Cleft|frac{2}{(2n-1)pi}-frac{2}{(2n+1)pi}right|$



          for $n>C.$ So, $f$ can't be Lipschitz.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered 2 days ago









          John_WickJohn_Wick

          1,464111




          1,464111












          • (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Oh, at what point?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Alright, let me edit it.
            – Mike
            2 days ago


















          • (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Oh, at what point?
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
            – John_Wick
            2 days ago










          • Alright, let me edit it.
            – Mike
            2 days ago
















          (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
          – Mike
          2 days ago




          (+1) for that. I'm I right too?
          – Mike
          2 days ago












          Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
          – John_Wick
          2 days ago




          Your approach was right, but the reasoning was a little bit shaky.
          – John_Wick
          2 days ago












          Oh, at what point?
          – Mike
          2 days ago




          Oh, at what point?
          – Mike
          2 days ago












          You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
          – John_Wick
          2 days ago




          You showed that $f'$ is not Lipschitz. But why does that imply $f$ is not Lipschitz is not very clear.
          – John_Wick
          2 days ago












          Alright, let me edit it.
          – Mike
          2 days ago




          Alright, let me edit it.
          – Mike
          2 days ago











          1














          $f'(0)$ does not exist so your approach won't work. But the idea is correct:



          You want to show that $frac{|f(x) - f(y)|}{|x - y|}$ is unbounded in $[0,1].$



          Now, it is a question of choosing judiciously a sequence for which the quotient blows up. It appears that the problem is at $0$ so it makes sense to try a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_nto 0.$ But in such a way that the numerator is bounded away from $0$ while the denominator gets small. So, looking at $frac{|xsin(1/x)-ysin(1/y)|}{|x - y|}$, we might try $x_n = frac{1}{2 pi n + pi/2}\$ because then the sines are equal to $1$. I'll leave it to you to find $y_nin [0,1]$ that gives us what we want.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            Thanks for that, Matematleta!
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You are welcome!
            – Matematleta
            2 days ago
















          1














          $f'(0)$ does not exist so your approach won't work. But the idea is correct:



          You want to show that $frac{|f(x) - f(y)|}{|x - y|}$ is unbounded in $[0,1].$



          Now, it is a question of choosing judiciously a sequence for which the quotient blows up. It appears that the problem is at $0$ so it makes sense to try a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_nto 0.$ But in such a way that the numerator is bounded away from $0$ while the denominator gets small. So, looking at $frac{|xsin(1/x)-ysin(1/y)|}{|x - y|}$, we might try $x_n = frac{1}{2 pi n + pi/2}\$ because then the sines are equal to $1$. I'll leave it to you to find $y_nin [0,1]$ that gives us what we want.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 1




            Thanks for that, Matematleta!
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You are welcome!
            – Matematleta
            2 days ago














          1












          1








          1






          $f'(0)$ does not exist so your approach won't work. But the idea is correct:



          You want to show that $frac{|f(x) - f(y)|}{|x - y|}$ is unbounded in $[0,1].$



          Now, it is a question of choosing judiciously a sequence for which the quotient blows up. It appears that the problem is at $0$ so it makes sense to try a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_nto 0.$ But in such a way that the numerator is bounded away from $0$ while the denominator gets small. So, looking at $frac{|xsin(1/x)-ysin(1/y)|}{|x - y|}$, we might try $x_n = frac{1}{2 pi n + pi/2}\$ because then the sines are equal to $1$. I'll leave it to you to find $y_nin [0,1]$ that gives us what we want.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          $f'(0)$ does not exist so your approach won't work. But the idea is correct:



          You want to show that $frac{|f(x) - f(y)|}{|x - y|}$ is unbounded in $[0,1].$



          Now, it is a question of choosing judiciously a sequence for which the quotient blows up. It appears that the problem is at $0$ so it makes sense to try a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_nto 0.$ But in such a way that the numerator is bounded away from $0$ while the denominator gets small. So, looking at $frac{|xsin(1/x)-ysin(1/y)|}{|x - y|}$, we might try $x_n = frac{1}{2 pi n + pi/2}\$ because then the sines are equal to $1$. I'll leave it to you to find $y_nin [0,1]$ that gives us what we want.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          MatematletaMatematleta

          10.1k2918




          10.1k2918








          • 1




            Thanks for that, Matematleta!
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You are welcome!
            – Matematleta
            2 days ago














          • 1




            Thanks for that, Matematleta!
            – Mike
            2 days ago










          • You are welcome!
            – Matematleta
            2 days ago








          1




          1




          Thanks for that, Matematleta!
          – Mike
          2 days ago




          Thanks for that, Matematleta!
          – Mike
          2 days ago












          You are welcome!
          – Matematleta
          2 days ago




          You are welcome!
          – Matematleta
          2 days ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062770%2fprove-that-fx-x-sin1-x-for-x-ne0-f0-0-is-not-lipschitz-on-0-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          Image
          Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
          Read more

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

          Image
          5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
          Read more

          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

          Image
          Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
          Read more