If $|f'(x)| leq c|f(x)|$ for all $x in (0,1)$ then $f(x)=0$












3












$begingroup$


Question: Let $f:[0,1] to mathbb{R}$ be a real valued continuous function which is differentiable on $(0,1)$, and satisfies $f(0)=0$. Suppose there exists a $c in (0,1)$ such that $|f'(x)| leq c|f(x)|$ for all $x in (0,1)$. Show that $f(x)=0$.



Solution attempt:



$f$ being continuous at $x=0$, for a given $epsilon >0$ $exists$ a $delta>0$, such that $|f(x)|< epsilon$ whenever $x in [0, delta) cap [0,1]$.



Now, consider $|f'(h)|=|lim_{k to 0}frac{f(h+k)-f(h)}{k} |leq |cf(h)| implies lim_{ k to 0} |f(2h)| leq |f(h)|[1+ c|k|] $ Being continuous at $x=0$, $lim_{h to 0} f(h) = f(0) = 0 implies f(2h) = 0$ [by applying $|f(2h)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1) $].



In this manner, let us partition the interval $[0,1)$ into $n$ subintervals of length $h$ each. As the length $h to 0$, $n to infty$, and recursively, we get $|f(rh)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1)^r $. Hence, finally for all $r$, we get $f(rh)=0$. By continuity, we can safely say, for all $x$ in those respective subintervals, $f(x)=0$. Again, by continuity, we have $lim_{ x to 1} f(x) = 0$.



Hence, $f(x)=0$ for all $x$ in $[0,1]$.






real-analysis calculus derivatives proof-verification continuity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The third line in your attempt does not make sense.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:43










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy which is?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 10 at 23:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am referring to $|f'(x)|=|lim frac {f(h+h)-f(h)} h|$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:45






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Still makes no sense. $|f'(h)|=|lim_{kto 0} frac {f(h+k)-f(k)} k|$. Don't mix variables.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot use the same variable in your limit $(h)$ and the value of $f'$, they have to be "independent" of one another
    $endgroup$
    – symchdmath
    Jan 10 at 23:49
















3












$begingroup$


Question: Let $f:[0,1] to mathbb{R}$ be a real valued continuous function which is differentiable on $(0,1)$, and satisfies $f(0)=0$. Suppose there exists a $c in (0,1)$ such that $|f'(x)| leq c|f(x)|$ for all $x in (0,1)$. Show that $f(x)=0$.



Solution attempt:



$f$ being continuous at $x=0$, for a given $epsilon >0$ $exists$ a $delta>0$, such that $|f(x)|< epsilon$ whenever $x in [0, delta) cap [0,1]$.



Now, consider $|f'(h)|=|lim_{k to 0}frac{f(h+k)-f(h)}{k} |leq |cf(h)| implies lim_{ k to 0} |f(2h)| leq |f(h)|[1+ c|k|] $ Being continuous at $x=0$, $lim_{h to 0} f(h) = f(0) = 0 implies f(2h) = 0$ [by applying $|f(2h)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1) $].



In this manner, let us partition the interval $[0,1)$ into $n$ subintervals of length $h$ each. As the length $h to 0$, $n to infty$, and recursively, we get $|f(rh)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1)^r $. Hence, finally for all $r$, we get $f(rh)=0$. By continuity, we can safely say, for all $x$ in those respective subintervals, $f(x)=0$. Again, by continuity, we have $lim_{ x to 1} f(x) = 0$.



Hence, $f(x)=0$ for all $x$ in $[0,1]$.






real-analysis calculus derivatives proof-verification continuity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The third line in your attempt does not make sense.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:43










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy which is?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 10 at 23:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am referring to $|f'(x)|=|lim frac {f(h+h)-f(h)} h|$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:45






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Still makes no sense. $|f'(h)|=|lim_{kto 0} frac {f(h+k)-f(k)} k|$. Don't mix variables.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot use the same variable in your limit $(h)$ and the value of $f'$, they have to be "independent" of one another
    $endgroup$
    – symchdmath
    Jan 10 at 23:49














3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


Question: Let $f:[0,1] to mathbb{R}$ be a real valued continuous function which is differentiable on $(0,1)$, and satisfies $f(0)=0$. Suppose there exists a $c in (0,1)$ such that $|f'(x)| leq c|f(x)|$ for all $x in (0,1)$. Show that $f(x)=0$.



Solution attempt:



$f$ being continuous at $x=0$, for a given $epsilon >0$ $exists$ a $delta>0$, such that $|f(x)|< epsilon$ whenever $x in [0, delta) cap [0,1]$.



Now, consider $|f'(h)|=|lim_{k to 0}frac{f(h+k)-f(h)}{k} |leq |cf(h)| implies lim_{ k to 0} |f(2h)| leq |f(h)|[1+ c|k|] $ Being continuous at $x=0$, $lim_{h to 0} f(h) = f(0) = 0 implies f(2h) = 0$ [by applying $|f(2h)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1) $].



In this manner, let us partition the interval $[0,1)$ into $n$ subintervals of length $h$ each. As the length $h to 0$, $n to infty$, and recursively, we get $|f(rh)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1)^r $. Hence, finally for all $r$, we get $f(rh)=0$. By continuity, we can safely say, for all $x$ in those respective subintervals, $f(x)=0$. Again, by continuity, we have $lim_{ x to 1} f(x) = 0$.



Hence, $f(x)=0$ for all $x$ in $[0,1]$.






real-analysis calculus derivatives proof-verification continuity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Question: Let $f:[0,1] to mathbb{R}$ be a real valued continuous function which is differentiable on $(0,1)$, and satisfies $f(0)=0$. Suppose there exists a $c in (0,1)$ such that $|f'(x)| leq c|f(x)|$ for all $x in (0,1)$. Show that $f(x)=0$.



Solution attempt:



$f$ being continuous at $x=0$, for a given $epsilon >0$ $exists$ a $delta>0$, such that $|f(x)|< epsilon$ whenever $x in [0, delta) cap [0,1]$.



Now, consider $|f'(h)|=|lim_{k to 0}frac{f(h+k)-f(h)}{k} |leq |cf(h)| implies lim_{ k to 0} |f(2h)| leq |f(h)|[1+ c|k|] $ Being continuous at $x=0$, $lim_{h to 0} f(h) = f(0) = 0 implies f(2h) = 0$ [by applying $|f(2h)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1) $].



In this manner, let us partition the interval $[0,1)$ into $n$ subintervals of length $h$ each. As the length $h to 0$, $n to infty$, and recursively, we get $|f(rh)| leq |f(h)|(c|k|+1)^r $. Hence, finally for all $r$, we get $f(rh)=0$. By continuity, we can safely say, for all $x$ in those respective subintervals, $f(x)=0$. Again, by continuity, we have $lim_{ x to 1} f(x) = 0$.



Hence, $f(x)=0$ for all $x$ in $[0,1]$.






real-analysis calculus derivatives proof-verification continuity




real-analysis calculus derivatives proof-verification continuity






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 11 at 0:16







Subhasis Biswas

















asked Jan 10 at 23:36









Subhasis BiswasSubhasis Biswas

488311




488311








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The third line in your attempt does not make sense.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:43










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy which is?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 10 at 23:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am referring to $|f'(x)|=|lim frac {f(h+h)-f(h)} h|$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:45






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Still makes no sense. $|f'(h)|=|lim_{kto 0} frac {f(h+k)-f(k)} k|$. Don't mix variables.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot use the same variable in your limit $(h)$ and the value of $f'$, they have to be "independent" of one another
    $endgroup$
    – symchdmath
    Jan 10 at 23:49














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The third line in your attempt does not make sense.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:43










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy which is?
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 10 at 23:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I am referring to $|f'(x)|=|lim frac {f(h+h)-f(h)} h|$
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:45






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Still makes no sense. $|f'(h)|=|lim_{kto 0} frac {f(h+k)-f(k)} k|$. Don't mix variables.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Jan 10 at 23:48








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You cannot use the same variable in your limit $(h)$ and the value of $f'$, they have to be "independent" of one another
    $endgroup$
    – symchdmath
    Jan 10 at 23:49








1




1




$begingroup$
The third line in your attempt does not make sense.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 10 at 23:43




$begingroup$
The third line in your attempt does not make sense.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 10 at 23:43












$begingroup$
@KaviRamaMurthy which is?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 10 at 23:44




$begingroup$
@KaviRamaMurthy which is?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 10 at 23:44




1




1




$begingroup$
I am referring to $|f'(x)|=|lim frac {f(h+h)-f(h)} h|$
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 10 at 23:45




$begingroup$
I am referring to $|f'(x)|=|lim frac {f(h+h)-f(h)} h|$
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 10 at 23:45




2




2




$begingroup$
Still makes no sense. $|f'(h)|=|lim_{kto 0} frac {f(h+k)-f(k)} k|$. Don't mix variables.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 10 at 23:48






$begingroup$
Still makes no sense. $|f'(h)|=|lim_{kto 0} frac {f(h+k)-f(k)} k|$. Don't mix variables.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Jan 10 at 23:48






1




1




$begingroup$
You cannot use the same variable in your limit $(h)$ and the value of $f'$, they have to be "independent" of one another
$endgroup$
– symchdmath
Jan 10 at 23:49




$begingroup$
You cannot use the same variable in your limit $(h)$ and the value of $f'$, they have to be "independent" of one another
$endgroup$
– symchdmath
Jan 10 at 23:49










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Let $M$ be the sup norm of $f$. Let us prove by induction that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$.
If $n=0$, this is obvious.



Let $n geq 0$ be such that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Then $|f’(x)| leq frac{c^{n+1}Mx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Since $f(0)=0$, integration yields the desired inequality.



Now, the $RHS$ goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to $infty$, thus $f=0$ (note that $c<1$ is unimportant).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:05










  • $begingroup$
    Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:08










  • $begingroup$
    I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:10












  • $begingroup$
    No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:32











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%2f3069314%2fif-fx-leq-cfx-for-all-x-in-0-1-then-fx-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

Let $M$ be the sup norm of $f$. Let us prove by induction that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$.
If $n=0$, this is obvious.



Let $n geq 0$ be such that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Then $|f’(x)| leq frac{c^{n+1}Mx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Since $f(0)=0$, integration yields the desired inequality.



Now, the $RHS$ goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to $infty$, thus $f=0$ (note that $c<1$ is unimportant).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:05










  • $begingroup$
    Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:08










  • $begingroup$
    I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:10












  • $begingroup$
    No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:32
















4












$begingroup$

Let $M$ be the sup norm of $f$. Let us prove by induction that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$.
If $n=0$, this is obvious.



Let $n geq 0$ be such that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Then $|f’(x)| leq frac{c^{n+1}Mx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Since $f(0)=0$, integration yields the desired inequality.



Now, the $RHS$ goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to $infty$, thus $f=0$ (note that $c<1$ is unimportant).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:05










  • $begingroup$
    Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:08










  • $begingroup$
    I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:10












  • $begingroup$
    No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:32














4












4








4





$begingroup$

Let $M$ be the sup norm of $f$. Let us prove by induction that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$.
If $n=0$, this is obvious.



Let $n geq 0$ be such that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Then $|f’(x)| leq frac{c^{n+1}Mx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Since $f(0)=0$, integration yields the desired inequality.



Now, the $RHS$ goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to $infty$, thus $f=0$ (note that $c<1$ is unimportant).






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $M$ be the sup norm of $f$. Let us prove by induction that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$.
If $n=0$, this is obvious.



Let $n geq 0$ be such that $|f(x)| leq frac{c^nMx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Then $|f’(x)| leq frac{c^{n+1}Mx^n}{n!}$ for each $x$.



Since $f(0)=0$, integration yields the desired inequality.



Now, the $RHS$ goes to $0$ as $n$ goes to $infty$, thus $f=0$ (note that $c<1$ is unimportant).







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 11 at 0:05

























answered Jan 11 at 0:04









MindlackMindlack

3,11717




3,11717












  • $begingroup$
    Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:05










  • $begingroup$
    Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:08










  • $begingroup$
    I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:10












  • $begingroup$
    No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:32


















  • $begingroup$
    Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:05










  • $begingroup$
    Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:08










  • $begingroup$
    I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
    $endgroup$
    – Subhasis Biswas
    Jan 11 at 0:10












  • $begingroup$
    No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Mindlack
    Jan 11 at 0:32
















$begingroup$
Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 11 at 0:05




$begingroup$
Can you please check out mine?! Correcting the mistakes will help me immensely.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 11 at 0:05












$begingroup$
Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Jan 11 at 0:08




$begingroup$
Ok: what does the inequality just after the first $Rightarrow$ mean?
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Jan 11 at 0:08












$begingroup$
I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 11 at 0:10






$begingroup$
I used the fact that $||a|-|b||≤|a-b|$ and $k$ approaches $0$
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 11 at 0:10














$begingroup$
No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Jan 11 at 0:11




$begingroup$
No, you did not. Because this inequality does not mean anything. $k$ is defined on the right hand side but not on the left hand side, for instance.
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Jan 11 at 0:11




1




1




$begingroup$
To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Jan 11 at 0:32




$begingroup$
To be brutally honest, I don’t think so. It seems to me to be very deeply flawed owing to it not manipulating limits with the necessary rigor. However, I cannot prove that there is no proof that borrows some part of your ideas, so ... ;)
$endgroup$
– Mindlack
Jan 11 at 0:32


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069314%2fif-fx-leq-cfx-for-all-x-in-0-1-then-fx-0%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