Daniel B. answered 12/20/21
A retired computer professional to teach math, physics
We will prove that
lim(h->0+)(f(0) - f(x+h))/(0 - h) < 0 and lim(h->0-)(f(0) - f(x+h))/(0 - h) > 0
if those limits exist at all.
Actually I will prove only the first part, as the second has a symmetrical argument.
But once both are proven then they imply that
lim(h->0)(f(0) - f(x+h))/(0 - h) does not exist, i.e., f is not differentiable at 0.
Lemma:
For any h > 0
f(0) - f(h/2) > (f(0) - f(h))/2
Proof:
By definition of convex function
f(h/2) < (f(0) + f(h))/2
From that
-f(h/2) > (-f(0) - f(h))/2
f(0) - f(h/2) > f(0) + (-f(0) - f(h))/2
f(0) - f(h/2) > (f(0) - f(h))/2
Now we continue with the main proof.
By definition of local maximum there exits h0>0 such that
f(0) > f(x+h0)
and hence
(f(0) - f(x+h0))/(-h0) < 0
Consider the following sequence s0, s1, ..., where
si = (f(0) - f(h0/2i))/(-h0/2i)
Intuitively we are approaching 0 from the right by halving the distance to 0 at each step.
We show that si+1 < si.
Using the Lemma and the fact that -h0 < 0
si+1 = (f(0) - f(h0/2i+1))/(-h0/2i+1) < (f(0) - f(-h0/2i))/2(-h0/2i+1) = si
So {si}is a decreasing sequence with each si < s0 = (f(0) - f(x+h0))/(-h0) < 0
This shows that if
lim(h->0+)(f(0) - f(x+h))/(-h)
exists then it must be negative.
And this completes the proof.