| Theorem 65 (Cauchy’s theorem) Let Proof: It is Let and define Thus by applying Theorem 63 in |
The previous theorem is perhaps more of a lemma than a theorem per se. Because it will allows us to prove more important results. Also this result can be seen as providing a method of finding (very) local approximations to functions at a given point and as such it is the same as a Taylor expansion of first order (we’ll see what this means in futures posts).
| Theorem 66 (Cauchy first limit rule) Let Proof: Let Applying Cauchy’s Theorem 65 to each interval with Then And by the definition of limit Thus Hence, by the definition of limit it is Analogously if applying Cauchy’s Theorem 65 to each interval with Just like in the previous steps it is From equation 34 and equation 35 it is Finally let Hence, for this case it also is The case |
| Theorem 67 (Cauchy second limit rule) Let Proof: Left as an exercise for the reader. |
The two previous theorems are known by a variety of names on the mathematical literature and are one of the most used theorems in the practice of calculating limits.
A few examples will now be used to showcase their powers
| Example 2 The functions |
At the end of the last example we arrived once again at the type of limit where
.
But the thing is that Cauchy’s first rule (and in fact the second rule too) can be used more than one time. Hence we’ll just apply it again (we’ll start from the begining again) just so we don’t lose our train of thought
As an exercise calculate
Another mathematical theorem from real analysis which is very important to Physics, in a conceptual level, is what we’ll call Lagrange’s theorem. Even though it is a theorem in Real Analysis it has a very nice interpretation in geometrical and in kinematic terms.
| Theorem 68 (Lagrange’s theorem) Let Proof: In theorem 65 let |
As I was saying before the statement and proof of this theorem it can be interpreted both geometrically and kinematically. The geometric interpretation states that the secant to the function in the interval
has a given slope and that we can always find a tangent to the function
in the interval
whose slope is the same as the secant. Hence the straight lines defined by these secant and tangent are parallel.
In a kinematic sense if represents time and
represents the distance travelled this result implies that if we transverse the distance
in the time interval
then we have an average speed which is
Since in this context can be interpreted as the being the instantaneous speed (or just speed for short) the previous result states that there exists a time instant
in which your instantaneous speed is the same as you average speed for the whole time interval.
| Example 3 Show that Proof: Let with Then Assume now that with Then Notice that in the we didn’t invert the sign of the inequality while multiplying by |
The last theorem has two important corollaries that we’ll state below.
| Corollary 69 Let Proof: By reductio ad absurdum let us assume that with Hence |
| Corollary 70 () Let Proof: Let us take the case with Since |
And with these results we finish the Differential Calculus part of our course in Real Analysis. The next theoretical posts of Real Analysis will dwell on the theory of numerical series.










