Another form of the Sandwich theorem (for derivatives in dimension $1$)











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












Here is the theorem :



"Let $Isubseteq mathbb{R}$ an interval which contains $ain mathbb{R}$. Let $M$ and $m$ two functions defined on $I$, differentiable at $a$ and $f$ a function defined on $I$ which takes value in $mathbb{R}$.



If :



$i) forall x in I , m(x)le f(x)le M(x)$



$ii) m(a) = f(a) = M(a)$



$iii) m'(a)= M'(a)$



Then $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$"



Here is my proof :



I consider the function : $xmapsto frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ with $xne a$



Then $forall x in I setminus {a}$ by using $i)$ we have directly :



$frac{m(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ if $x-a>0$ (for the other case we just have to change the sign of the inequality)



But by $ii)$ we have : $m(a)=f(a)=M(a)$ so we obtain :



$frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$



$Rightarrow$
$m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



Then by using $iii)$ we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ or $M'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



So we prove that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ (by the Squeeze theorem the limit gives $m'(a)$ or $M'(a)$) and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$



The theorem is proved.



Am I right ? Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Yes, your proof is (almost) correct, but in one of your first inequalities, you have to distinguish the cases $x<a$ and $x>a$, because this will change the sign of the denominator.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:07










  • @PhoemueX I was thinking about that fact and it can be more precise thanks... And do you think that the case $x=a$ is necessary for this proof ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:11










  • No, the case $x=a$ is not needed. The value around $x=a$ plays no role for $lim_{xto a}dots$. The value $f(a)$ only enters because of $frac{f(x)-color{red}{ f(a)}}{x-a}$.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:43












  • @PhoemueX ok perfect, thanks for confirmation !
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:48















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












Here is the theorem :



"Let $Isubseteq mathbb{R}$ an interval which contains $ain mathbb{R}$. Let $M$ and $m$ two functions defined on $I$, differentiable at $a$ and $f$ a function defined on $I$ which takes value in $mathbb{R}$.



If :



$i) forall x in I , m(x)le f(x)le M(x)$



$ii) m(a) = f(a) = M(a)$



$iii) m'(a)= M'(a)$



Then $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$"



Here is my proof :



I consider the function : $xmapsto frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ with $xne a$



Then $forall x in I setminus {a}$ by using $i)$ we have directly :



$frac{m(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ if $x-a>0$ (for the other case we just have to change the sign of the inequality)



But by $ii)$ we have : $m(a)=f(a)=M(a)$ so we obtain :



$frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$



$Rightarrow$
$m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



Then by using $iii)$ we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ or $M'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



So we prove that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ (by the Squeeze theorem the limit gives $m'(a)$ or $M'(a)$) and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$



The theorem is proved.



Am I right ? Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Yes, your proof is (almost) correct, but in one of your first inequalities, you have to distinguish the cases $x<a$ and $x>a$, because this will change the sign of the denominator.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:07










  • @PhoemueX I was thinking about that fact and it can be more precise thanks... And do you think that the case $x=a$ is necessary for this proof ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:11










  • No, the case $x=a$ is not needed. The value around $x=a$ plays no role for $lim_{xto a}dots$. The value $f(a)$ only enters because of $frac{f(x)-color{red}{ f(a)}}{x-a}$.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:43












  • @PhoemueX ok perfect, thanks for confirmation !
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:48













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





Here is the theorem :



"Let $Isubseteq mathbb{R}$ an interval which contains $ain mathbb{R}$. Let $M$ and $m$ two functions defined on $I$, differentiable at $a$ and $f$ a function defined on $I$ which takes value in $mathbb{R}$.



If :



$i) forall x in I , m(x)le f(x)le M(x)$



$ii) m(a) = f(a) = M(a)$



$iii) m'(a)= M'(a)$



Then $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$"



Here is my proof :



I consider the function : $xmapsto frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ with $xne a$



Then $forall x in I setminus {a}$ by using $i)$ we have directly :



$frac{m(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ if $x-a>0$ (for the other case we just have to change the sign of the inequality)



But by $ii)$ we have : $m(a)=f(a)=M(a)$ so we obtain :



$frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$



$Rightarrow$
$m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



Then by using $iii)$ we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ or $M'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



So we prove that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ (by the Squeeze theorem the limit gives $m'(a)$ or $M'(a)$) and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$



The theorem is proved.



Am I right ? Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question















Here is the theorem :



"Let $Isubseteq mathbb{R}$ an interval which contains $ain mathbb{R}$. Let $M$ and $m$ two functions defined on $I$, differentiable at $a$ and $f$ a function defined on $I$ which takes value in $mathbb{R}$.



If :



$i) forall x in I , m(x)le f(x)le M(x)$



$ii) m(a) = f(a) = M(a)$



$iii) m'(a)= M'(a)$



Then $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$"



Here is my proof :



I consider the function : $xmapsto frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ with $xne a$



Then $forall x in I setminus {a}$ by using $i)$ we have directly :



$frac{m(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ if $x-a>0$ (for the other case we just have to change the sign of the inequality)



But by $ii)$ we have : $m(a)=f(a)=M(a)$ so we obtain :



$frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$



$Rightarrow$
$m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



Then by using $iii)$ we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ or $M'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le M'(a)$



So we prove that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ (by the Squeeze theorem the limit gives $m'(a)$ or $M'(a)$) and we have $f'(a)=m'(a)=M'(a)$



The theorem is proved.



Am I right ? Thanks in advance.







real-analysis proof-verification






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 27 '14 at 16:49

























asked Dec 27 '14 at 14:43









Maman

1,134722




1,134722












  • Yes, your proof is (almost) correct, but in one of your first inequalities, you have to distinguish the cases $x<a$ and $x>a$, because this will change the sign of the denominator.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:07










  • @PhoemueX I was thinking about that fact and it can be more precise thanks... And do you think that the case $x=a$ is necessary for this proof ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:11










  • No, the case $x=a$ is not needed. The value around $x=a$ plays no role for $lim_{xto a}dots$. The value $f(a)$ only enters because of $frac{f(x)-color{red}{ f(a)}}{x-a}$.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:43












  • @PhoemueX ok perfect, thanks for confirmation !
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:48


















  • Yes, your proof is (almost) correct, but in one of your first inequalities, you have to distinguish the cases $x<a$ and $x>a$, because this will change the sign of the denominator.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:07










  • @PhoemueX I was thinking about that fact and it can be more precise thanks... And do you think that the case $x=a$ is necessary for this proof ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 15:11










  • No, the case $x=a$ is not needed. The value around $x=a$ plays no role for $lim_{xto a}dots$. The value $f(a)$ only enters because of $frac{f(x)-color{red}{ f(a)}}{x-a}$.
    – PhoemueX
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:43












  • @PhoemueX ok perfect, thanks for confirmation !
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 16:48
















Yes, your proof is (almost) correct, but in one of your first inequalities, you have to distinguish the cases $x<a$ and $x>a$, because this will change the sign of the denominator.
– PhoemueX
Dec 27 '14 at 15:07




Yes, your proof is (almost) correct, but in one of your first inequalities, you have to distinguish the cases $x<a$ and $x>a$, because this will change the sign of the denominator.
– PhoemueX
Dec 27 '14 at 15:07












@PhoemueX I was thinking about that fact and it can be more precise thanks... And do you think that the case $x=a$ is necessary for this proof ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 15:11




@PhoemueX I was thinking about that fact and it can be more precise thanks... And do you think that the case $x=a$ is necessary for this proof ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 15:11












No, the case $x=a$ is not needed. The value around $x=a$ plays no role for $lim_{xto a}dots$. The value $f(a)$ only enters because of $frac{f(x)-color{red}{ f(a)}}{x-a}$.
– PhoemueX
Dec 27 '14 at 16:43






No, the case $x=a$ is not needed. The value around $x=a$ plays no role for $lim_{xto a}dots$. The value $f(a)$ only enters because of $frac{f(x)-color{red}{ f(a)}}{x-a}$.
– PhoemueX
Dec 27 '14 at 16:43














@PhoemueX ok perfect, thanks for confirmation !
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 16:48




@PhoemueX ok perfect, thanks for confirmation !
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 16:48










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













It's correct. just a formal thing: you can't move to the inequality
$$
m^prime(a)leqlim_{xrightarrow a}frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq M^prime(a)
$$
Because you haven't proved that the limit exists. you need to move from the first inequality straight to the conclusion.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:11












  • no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:15










  • But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:22










  • Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:26










  • ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:35













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',
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%2f1082452%2fanother-form-of-the-sandwich-theorem-for-derivatives-in-dimension-1%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








up vote
0
down vote













It's correct. just a formal thing: you can't move to the inequality
$$
m^prime(a)leqlim_{xrightarrow a}frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq M^prime(a)
$$
Because you haven't proved that the limit exists. you need to move from the first inequality straight to the conclusion.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:11












  • no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:15










  • But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:22










  • Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:26










  • ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:35

















up vote
0
down vote













It's correct. just a formal thing: you can't move to the inequality
$$
m^prime(a)leqlim_{xrightarrow a}frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq M^prime(a)
$$
Because you haven't proved that the limit exists. you need to move from the first inequality straight to the conclusion.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:11












  • no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:15










  • But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:22










  • Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:26










  • ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:35















up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









It's correct. just a formal thing: you can't move to the inequality
$$
m^prime(a)leqlim_{xrightarrow a}frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq M^prime(a)
$$
Because you haven't proved that the limit exists. you need to move from the first inequality straight to the conclusion.






share|cite|improve this answer












It's correct. just a formal thing: you can't move to the inequality
$$
m^prime(a)leqlim_{xrightarrow a}frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq M^prime(a)
$$
Because you haven't proved that the limit exists. you need to move from the first inequality straight to the conclusion.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 27 '14 at 16:54









tzoorp

57637




57637












  • You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:11












  • no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:15










  • But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:22










  • Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:26










  • ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:35




















  • You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:11












  • no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:15










  • But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:22










  • Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
    – tzoorp
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:26










  • ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
    – Maman
    Dec 27 '14 at 17:35


















You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 17:11






You mean that it is better to write $lim_{xrightarrow a}frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} = m'(a)$ before this inequality ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 17:11














no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
– tzoorp
Dec 27 '14 at 17:15




no, i mean that you should write $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a}leq frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}leq frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ and from there move to the conclusion that $f$ is derivable at $a$ and that $m^prime(a)=f^prime(a)=M^prime(a)$
– tzoorp
Dec 27 '14 at 17:15












But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 17:22




But you used the squeeze theorem to get $m'(a)$ and $M'(a)$ no ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 17:22












Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
– tzoorp
Dec 27 '14 at 17:26




Yes, the step in my comment is due to the sandwich theorem.
– tzoorp
Dec 27 '14 at 17:26












ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 17:35






ok so it's better if I write : $frac{m(x)-m(a)}{x-a} le frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le frac{M(x)-M(a)}{x-a}$ then by applying the squeeze theorem and the third hypothesis we have : $m'(a) le lim limits_{xto a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} le m'(a)$ which means that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ ?
– Maman
Dec 27 '14 at 17:35




















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%2f1082452%2fanother-form-of-the-sandwich-theorem-for-derivatives-in-dimension-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

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei