Does Michael Spivak's Calculus explain why x²sin(1/x) < ε when ε > 1?

  • Thread starter Buri
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Spivak
In summary, if ε > 0, then it is sufficient to require that |x| < ε and x ≠ 0, provided that ε ≤ 1. However, if ε > 1, then it is not sufficient to require that |x| < ε.
  • #1
Buri
273
0
Is Michael Spivak Wrong!?

My text says,

In general, if ε > 0, to ensure that

|x²sin(1/x)| < ε,

we need only require that

|x| < ε and x ≠ 0, provided that ε ≤ 1. If we are given an ε which is greater than 1 (it might be, even thought it is "small" ε's which are of interest), then it does not suffice to require that |x| < ε, but it certainly suffices to require that |x| < 1 and x ≠ 0.

I don't see why if ε > 1 then it doesn't work. I've tried finding a counter example, but it always seem to work. Can someone please help me out?

EDIT:

x²sin(1/x) ≈ x when x → ∞ so it would seem that when x isn't very large then x²sin(1/x) will always be less then x and hence less then ε, even if ε were greater than 1.

ANY HELP?? Please?

BTW, this is Calculus by Spivak page 92-93.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Try x = 6/pi.

Then [itex]sin(1/x) = 1/2[/itex], so [itex]x^2\sin(1/x)=18/\pi^2[/itex].

The reason why it doesn't necessarily work when [itex]x>1[/itex] is that we may have [itex]|x^2| > \epsilon[/itex] so we need sin to be suifficiently small, but x^2 grows towards infinity much faster than sin(1/x) grows towards 0.

It is true that we could still works with values of epsilon a little above 1, but we would need a different argument then.
 
  • #3


So what would be wrong with this proof then?

sin x < x for x > 0, so then
|sin x| < |x| for x ≠ 0, so in particular we have

|sin x| < |x| for nonzero x in the interval (-1,1)

This means that

|sin(1/x)| < |1/x| for |x| > 1

which implies

|x^2 sin(1/x)| < |x| for |x| > 1

This should guarantee then that if ε > 1 and 1 < |x| < ε, then
|x^2 sin(1/x)| < |x| < ε
 
  • #4


Yes, you are totally correct.

In fact, for all x in R, we have |x^2 sin(1/x)|<=|x|, so we can take delta=epsilon.

I think what Spivak meant, was that in this chapter you know almost nothing about the sine function. He only uses the very rough estimate |sin x|<= 1 for all x, which everyone knows and which is clear from the picture of the unit circle. If you want to extend the argument for epsilon >1, you will have to come up with a better estimate of |sin x| (or |sin(1/x)|): for example you are using the inequality
|sin x|<=|x|. I think Spivak does not want to assume you to know this fact, because the sine has not been introduced formally.
 
  • #5


I'm confused now. Landau, you're telling me I'm right, but rasmhop has provided the counter-example x = 6/&pi;. So I'm massively confused now...
 
  • #6


Buri said:
but rasmhop has provided the counter-example x = 6/&pi;.

That isn't really a counterexample I responded too hastily. Taking [itex]x=6/\pi[/itex] we get:
[tex]x^2\sin(1/x) > 1[/tex]
but obviously not
[tex]x^2\sin(1/x) > x[/tex]
(for instance by the argument you provided). So my counterexample doesn't work.
 
  • #7


Wait a second, x = 6/&pi; doesn't work! lol
 
  • #8


Well thanks for helping me guys, this had been bothering me lol So thanks a lot for the help!
 
  • #9


Yes, you were right. You're welcome :)
 
  • #10


[tex]|sin(\frac{1}{x})|<\frac{1}{x}[/tex] (since |sin(x)|<|x|) so it's certainly always true that [tex]|x^2sin(\frac{1}{x})|<|x|[/tex]

It might be that the way he proves it is far more convenient to assume that x is small, since a proof of sin(x)<x is non-trivial from first principles
 
  • #11


interesting...
 

1. Is Michael Spivak considered an authoritative source in the scientific community?

No, Michael Spivak is not considered an authoritative source in the scientific community. He is a mathematician and his work primarily focuses on mathematics, not science.

2. What is Michael Spivak's main argument in "Is Michael Spivak Wrong?"

Michael Spivak's main argument is that the scientific method, while effective in many cases, is not a perfect or infallible method for discovering and understanding the natural world. He argues that there may be limitations and biases in the way scientists conduct experiments and interpret data.

3. Has Michael Spivak's work been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals?

No, Michael Spivak's work has not been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. He is a mathematician and his work primarily focuses on mathematics, not science. However, some of his work has been published in mathematics journals.

4. What is the response from the scientific community to Michael Spivak's argument?

The response from the scientific community to Michael Spivak's argument varies. Some scientists may agree with his points and believe that there are limitations to the scientific method, while others may strongly disagree and defend the scientific method as the most reliable tool for understanding the natural world.

5. Does "Is Michael Spivak Wrong?" propose an alternative method to the scientific method?

No, "Is Michael Spivak Wrong?" does not propose an alternative method to the scientific method. It mainly critiques the scientific method and suggests that it may not be a perfect or infallible tool for understanding the natural world, but it does not offer an alternative method for doing so.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Calculus
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
937
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top