limit proving

Recommended Posts

agghh i hate this kind of maths mainly because i am really bad at it

"this kind" being of course the proving of limits using deltas and epsilons

can anybody help me or give some advice with this stuff?

Cheers

Sarah

Share on other sites

Do you have a specific example in mind? I ask because solving such a problem might be more helpful to you, as opposed to just working out a random epsilon-delta proof.

Share on other sites

umm ok just like proving the limit theroems for example. ie. lim(f(x)g(x)=LM x->a

if lim f(x)=L, x->a, g(x)=m,x->a

those sort of things....

btw i like your quote Dapthar

Share on other sites
umm ok just like proving the limit theroems for example. ie. lim(f(x)g(x)=LM x->a

if lim f(x)=L' date=' x->a, g(x)=m,x->a

[/quote']Sure. Apparently the LaTex module is still down, so I'll just have to write in plain text.

Assume as x->a, lim f(x) = L, and g(x) = M. We wish to show the following:

As x-> a, lim (f(x)*g(x)) = LM.

First, we need to translate the above condition into epsilons and deltas. (I use e for epsilon, and d for delta).

Thus, as x->a becomes |x-a| < d, and

lim (f(x)*g(x)) = LM becomes |f(x)*g(x) - LM| < e.

Now, given any e > 0, we want to find a d > 0 such that

(1) |x-a| < d implies |f(x)*g(x) - LM| < e

Keep the above in mind, as it is our goal.

Why? If we can do this, we have proven that, given any error e, we can find an x close enough to a such that we can make the difference between f(x)*g(x) and LM smaller than e. This means that 'when x equals a', f(a)*g(a) = LM.

We also know that as x->a, lim f(x) = L, and g(x) = M. Let's translate this to e's and d's.

First, let's deal with as x->a, lim f(x) = L.

This translates to, for any e1 > 0, there exists a d1 > 0 such that:

(2) |x-a| < d1 implies |f(x) - L| < e1

Now, let's deal with as x->a, lim g(x) = M.

Also, for any e2 > 0, there exists a d2 > 0 such that:

(3) |x-a| < d2 implies |g(x) - M| < e2

Now, we will use these in a little bit, so remember them.

We want to make (1) less than e, so we're going to do a standard mathematical trick (As one of my professors used to say, "When you're an undergraduate they're tricks, but when you're a graduate student, they're techniques".), adding and subtracting a quantity.

So, we get that

|f(x)*g(x) - LM| = |f(x)*g(x) - L*g(x) + L*g(x) - LM|

Rearranging this a bit, and factoring, we get

(4) |f(x)*g(x) - L*g(x) + L*g(x) - LM| = |g(x)*(f(x) - L) + L*(g(x)-M)|

Now, recall (2) and (3). They tell us something about |f(x)-L| and |g(x)-M|, specifically, they tell us 'epsilon and delta information' about |f(x)-L| and |g(x)-M|. So, we'd like to use these to learn 'epsilon and delta information' about (4). Thus, we make use of the triangle inequality.

Remember that the triangle inequality says that, for all a and b:

|a + b| =< |a| + |b| ( =< is 'less than or equal to')

So, let's use the triangle inequality to simplify (4). Here our a = g(x)*(f(x) - L), and our b = L*(g(x)-M). So, we get the following:

|g(x)*(f(x) - L) + L*(g(x)-M)| < |g(x)*(f(x) - L)| + |L*(g(x)-M)|

Simplifying, we get:

|g(x)*(f(x) - L)| + |L*(g(x)-M)| = |g(x)||f(x) - L| + |L||g(x)-M|

We can take two approaches from here, the more intuitive, longer one, or the less intuitive, shorter approach. I take the former.

We will now use (2) and (3). From these, we know that we can pick any positive e1 and e2, and there exists a positive d1 and d2 such that

|x-a| < d1 implies |f(x) - L| < e1

|x-a| < d2 implies |g(x) - M| < e2

Our first guess might be to pick e1 = e2 = e, so let's do that, and call the associated d1 and d2, d1 and d2. Note that for both conditions to be true, |x-a| has to be smaller than d1 and d2, so let d3 = min(d1, d2).

But wait, we didn't say anything about |g(x)| yet, and if we don't, |g(x)| will still be in our final answer, and we definitely don't want that.

Intuitively, we want |g(x)| to 'behave like' |L|. We'll see why this is helpful in a minute.

Recall that:

|x-a| < d2 implies |g(x) - M| < e2

Where we pick e2, and get a d2. So, let's pick e2 = 1. Then we get a d2 such that:

|x-a| < d2 implies |g(x) - M| < 1

Let's call this d2 by the name d4, and let d5=min(d4,d3) (this ensures that all the conditions we've set up so far will hold when |x-a| < d5).

Recall the reverse triangle inequality. For all a1 and b1:

|a1| - |b1| < |a1 - b1|

Let's apply this with a1 = g(x) and b1 = M.

Thus, we get:

|g(x)| - |M| < |g(x) - M| < 1

Therefore,

|g(x)| - |M| < 1

Rearranging a bit, we get

|g(x)| < |M| + 1.

Now, it's time to put it all together. Thus:

|x-a| < d5 implies that

|f(x)*g(x) - LM| < |g(x)||f(x) - L| + |L||g(x)-M| < (|M| + 1) * e1 + |L|*e2 = (|M| + 1) * e + |L|*e

Thus,

|x-a| < d5 implies that

|f(x)*g(x) - LM|< e*(|M| + 1 + |L|)

Now, this is almost what we wanted, however, we orginally set out to prove that we could find a d such that

|x-a| < d implies that

|f(x)*g(x) - LM|< e

However, this isn't a big problem. Now, we can see that insted of picking e1 = e2 = e, if we just picked e1 = e /(2*(|M|+1)), and e2 = e /(2*|L|), we would be given a d6 and d7 such that:

|x - a| < min(d6, d7) implies that (|M| + 1) * e1 + |L|*e2 = (|M| + 1) * e /(2*(|M|+1)) + |L|*e /(2*|L|) = e/2 + e/2 = e.

So, we just 'go back' and make this change. Now, if we set d = min(d4, d6, d7), we get that:

|x-a| < d implies that |f(x)*g(x) - LM|< e

Which is what we originally wanted.

If any part of this explanation was unclear, feel free to ask.

btw i like your quote Dapthar
Thanks.

Share on other sites

Latex module?

"Now, let's deal with as x->a, lim g(x) = M.

Also, for any e2 > 0, there exists a d2 > 0 such that:

(3) |x-a| < d1 implies |g(x) - M| < e2"

is that meant to be |x-a| < d2?

because down here you have...

x-a| < d1 implies |f(x) - L| < e1

|x-a| < d2 implies |g(x) - M| < e2

your probably right of course i'm just yeah not sure if i know whats going on there?

and...

Our first guess might be to pick e1 = e1 = e, so let's do tha

is that mean to be e1=e2=e?

lol its all so complicated, but i think i am getting there.....

i tried this method with another proof, but it involves continuties so i got abit stuck.

"Use the formal definition of limit twice to prove that if f is continuous at L and if lim g(x) = L ,x->c then lim f(g(x)) = f(L), x->c

Share on other sites
Latex model?? lol
LaTeX is the language used to display mathematical symbols in everything from bulletin boards to research papers. However, I guess it sounds a bit odd when mentioned out of context.

"Now' date=' let's deal with as x->a, lim g(x) = M.

Also, for any e2 > 0, there exists a d2 > 0 such that:

(3) |x-a| < d1 implies |g(x) - M| < e2"

is that meant to be |x-a| < d2?[/quote']Yup, you're right, it should be d2. Mistake on my part.

Our first guess might be to pick e1 = e1 = e' date=' so let's do tha

is that mean to be e1=e2=e?[/quote']Right again, it should be e1=e2=e. I'll edit my earlier post to correct these errors.

i tried this method with another proof, but it involves continuties so i got abit stuck.

"Use the formal definition of limit twice to prove that if f is continuous at L and if lim g(x) = L ,x->c then lim f(g(x)) = f(L), x->c

You just need to translate 'f is continuous at L' into an epsilon-delta condtion.

Whenever anyone says that a function h(x) is continuous at a point b, it is the exact same thing as saying that as x->b, lim h(x) = h(b), i.e., the limit is what you expect it to be.

Share on other sites

Dapthar, your discussion of epsilon/delta proofs was extremely good. I did not have time to inspect it carefully, but when I want to, it is something that will hold my attention. I could see your careful use of logic.

Regards

Share on other sites

k thanks i'll look into a bit more, though this stuff still makes no sense to me but i'll try

Share on other sites

I found that it didn't really make sense when I did it, but looking back on it after a year (and after you've had chance to pick up on all of the little hints), it gets a lot easier. I had the same kind of problems - I think more or less everyone does.

Share on other sites

Sarah, there is a diagram which helps in understanding the epsilon/delta definition of 'limit' in any calculus text. Have you seen it?

Share on other sites
Dapthar' date=' your discussion of epsilon/delta proofs was extremely good. I did not have time to inspect it carefully, but when I want to, it is something that will hold my attention. I could see your careful use of logic.

[/quote']Thanks. I try to write proofs that mimic the thought process one goes through when working out the problem. It usually ends up a bit longer than a normal proof, but hopefully it ends up being a bit clearer.

k thanks i'll look into a bit more, though this stuff still makes no sense to me but i'll try
Well, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Share on other sites

lol ok i got another question..... i understand your proof now but i still can't do this question....

"Use the relevant formal definition to prove that:

x->1-, lim 1/(x-1)=-infinity

Share on other sites
lol ok i got another question..... i understand your proof now but i still can't do this question....

"Use the relevant formal definition to prove that:

x->1-' date=' lim 1/(x-1)=-infinity[/quote']

Can you state this in words please, i want to have a go at it.

"The limit as x approaches one from the left, of one divided by x minus one equals negative infinity" <---- is that right ??

Share on other sites

Looks to be right to me.

Share on other sites
lol ok i got another question..... i understand your proof now but i still can't do this question....

"Use the relevant formal definition to prove that:

x->1-' date=' lim 1/(x-1)=-infinity[/quote']As before, you just have to translate the conditions into epsilon-delta statements.

After you translate the conditions, you get the following. (Again, I use e and d for epsilon and delta)

For all M < 0, there exists a d > 0 such that

1 - x < d implies 1/(x-1) < M (The lack of absolute value symbols is purposeful.)

Since we have a definite function, we can solve for the specific d. Let's work with the 1/(x-1) < M expression.

If we are given any M < 0, we want to find an d such that 1 - x < d.

However,

1/(x-1) < M implies that 1/M < x - 1.

Multiplying both sides by -1, we get that

-1/M > 1 - x, thus if we let d = -1/M, we're done.

Thus, now given any M < 0, there exists a d > 0 such that 1 - x < d implies 1/(x-1) < M.

Share on other sites
As before' date=' you just have to translate the conditions into epsilon-delta statements.

After you translate the conditions, you get the following. ([i']Again, I use e and d for epsilon and delta[/i])

For all M < 0, there exists a d > 0 such that

1 - x < d implies 1/(x-1) < M (The lack of absolute value symbols is purposeful.)

Since we have a definite function, we can solve for the specific d. Let's work with the 1/(x-1) < M expression.

If we are given any M < 0, we want to find an d such that 1 - x < d.

However,

1/(x-1) < M implies that 1/M < x - 1.

Multiplying both sides by -1, we get that

-1/M > 1 - x, thus if we let d = -1/M, we're done.

Thus, now given any M < 0, there exists a d > 0 such that 1 - x < d implies 1/(x-1) < M.

How does this show that the limit is negative infinity?

I don't even see the infinity symbol.

Regards

PS: Nice work again by the way. I'm going to follow this argument eventually.

Share on other sites
How does this show that the limit is negative infinity?

I don't even see the infinity symbol.

Regards

It's one of the big secrets in Mathematics; formal proofs almost never deal with infinity. Note that the proof mentions "for all M < 0"' date=' i.e., I can choose [b']M[/b] to be -1, -10, or -1 000 000, thus, 'in the limit, we go to negative infinity'. Infinite limits 'basically' follow the same rules as 'regular' limits, that for any error e, we can provide a d such that if |x-a| < d then |f(x) - L| < e, so 'at a, f(x) equals L', except here, our L is negative infinity. We just had to show that 'we can get arbitrarily close to negative infinity'.

PS: Nice work again by the way. I'm going to follow this argument eventually.
Thanks.

Share on other sites

cheers for that Dapthar

Share on other sites
... for any error e' date=' we can provide a [b']d[/b] such that if |x-a| < d then |f(x) - L| < e, so 'at a, f(x) equals L'...

Is this the exact definition of limit that you see in calculus books?

Share on other sites

Pretty much. You might see it written like this:

$\forall \epsilon > 0 \exists \delta > 0 \text{ such that } | x-a | < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L | < \epsilon$

(using universal quantifiers). Translated into English, this reads:

"For any epsilon > 0, there exists a delta greater than zero such that..." and the rest is the same.

Share on other sites
Is this the exact definition of limit that you see in calculus books?
dave's right. In addition, the for definition for:

$\lim_{x\to a}f(x) = -\infty$ is

$\forall L < 0$ $\exists \delta > 0$ such that $|x - a| < \delta \implies f(x) < L$

Share on other sites
Pretty much. You might see it written like this:

$\forall \epsilon > 0 \exists \delta > 0 \text{ such that } | x-a | < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L | < \epsilon$

(using universal quantifiers). Translated into English' date=' this reads:

"For any epsilon > 0, there exists a delta greater than zero such that..." and the rest is the same.[/quote']

That's it thats the one. Symbol per symbol. It was good to write "such that" as well Dave.

Ok I have a question about that Dave.

In first order logic, there is a difference between writing

$\forall \epsilon \exists \delta$

$\exists \delta \forall \epsilon$

Can you explain it to me rapidly?

I know I am being a pest, but thank you.

Share on other sites

Well, the first one says that no matter what epsilon you choose, you can always find a delta. The second one is saying that for one specific delta, there are a load of epsilons.

I've heard a really good analogy of this in my Foundations lectures, but I can't seem to remember it offhand. Something to do with brothers and sisters. Perhaps I'll post it later if I can remember it.

Share on other sites
Well' date=' the first one says that no matter what epsilon you choose, you can always find a delta. The second one is saying that for one specific delta, there are a load of epsilons.

[/quote']

Yes I know that answer... I was thinking more along the lines of whether or not epsilon is a function of delta.

You know in the one case yes, and the other no, which links somehow to the meaning of function.

I never did understand the definition of 'function.'

Share on other sites

Well, when it comes to deltas and epsilons, we don't consider functions as much as dependent upon; for example, convergence of a sequence:

$\forall \epsilon > 0 \exists N \in \mathbb{N} \text{ such that } | a_n - a | < \epsilon \forall n \geq N$

In this case, our N will depend on epsilon; often it's written $N(\epsilon)$. I suppose you can consider it as a function if you wanted.

Create an account

Register a new account