Re: hints on this limit?

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:05:25 -0500

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:14:35 -0700, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:

>In article <ed5ll092l4bql83duoo7ftcqlfg9vdj6pj@4ax.com>,
> David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2004 09:25:26 -0700, snispilbor@yahoo.com (Snis Pilbor)
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
>What's all this? Apply LHR to [f(x+h)+f(x-h)-2f(x)]/h^2 as Robin suggested;
>a few lines later and you're done (and you only need to assume f''(x)
>exists).

I didn't dispute that - I was just trying to show how it followed
from just the mean value theorem, since the OP was conjecturing
that MVT must be relevant...

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The definite integral.
    ... >David C. Ullrich wrote: ... >> You've said a few times that one can prove ftc without mvt. ... Note that the slope of this line is not 0. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The definite integral.
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote ... > about how a proof of ftc using mvt is somehow inappropriate. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Derivation Of The Spectrum Due To f(t).d(t - T)?????
    ... >concept of generalised functions which were in any case ... to arrive at a result that wasn't in dispute. ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Chouette rules?
    ... >David C. Ullrich wrote: ... >>> I have a different hypothesis about the rules dispute. ... >>> I think that someone had the opportunity to play moves corresponding ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Nominations still being accepted for the MSMVPHOS!
    ... Thank for posting that David - care to provide the source? ... I don't dispute the numbers, maybe Alias will thank you for getting the ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)