Continuity of Functions with Unbounded Domains and the Limit of Compositions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the continuity of functions with unbounded domains, particularly focusing on the limit of compositions of functions. Participants explore conditions under which the limit of a composition can be equated to the composition of limits, especially in the context of the natural logarithm and a specific function as x approaches infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of a proposition regarding limits and continuity, specifically whether \(\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(g(x)) = f(\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} g(x))\) holds under certain conditions.
  • Another participant asserts that the logarithm is continuous and suggests that the limit of \((x-1)/(x+1)\) as \(x\) approaches infinity tends to 1, implying a connection to the original proposition.
  • A clarification is made regarding the term "superiorly unbounded," with a participant indicating it refers to a domain without an upper bound.
  • One participant argues that the continuity of the logarithm at 1 is sufficient to conclude the limit, framing it as a consequence of the definition of continuity.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of continuity for limits, questioning whether continuity of \(g\) at \(L\) is necessary for the limit of compositions to hold true.
  • A later reply emphasizes that continuity of \(g\) at \(L\) is required to assert that the limit of \(g(f(x))\) equals \(g(L)\), which is relevant for the problem at hand.
  • One participant outlines a proof strategy for showing that \((x-1)/(x+1)\) approaches 1 as \(x\) approaches infinity, detailing the epsilon-delta argument.
  • Another participant points out a flaw in the proof attempt related to applying the triangle inequality incorrectly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of continuity conditions for the limits of compositions. While some agree on the continuity of the logarithm being sufficient, others challenge the assumptions and point out the need for further clarification on continuity requirements.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved mathematical steps in the proof attempts, particularly regarding the application of inequalities and the conditions under which limits can be interchanged. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of continuity in the context of limits approaching infinity.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Is the following true? Is so, under what conditions, and what are, roughly, the arguments used to prove it?

f,g two functions of superiorly unbounded domain and such that for x > N, g(x) is continuous and f(g(x)) is continuous.

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(g(x)) = f(\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} g(x))[/tex]

I'm trying to show what

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} ln \left(\frac{x-1}{x+1} \right)=0[/tex]

where ln is the natural logarithm (I think some people use the notation log for that). And without that "theorem", I don't see how to do it. :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
log is continuous. (x-1)/(x+1) tends to 1 as x tends to infinity. you see how to put that together? (don't even know what superiorly bounded means...)
 
superiorly unbounded: Is that not a word? I meant to say the domain has no upper bound.

I see how to put that together if the proposition I stated is true.

I guess you're saying it is, then.
 
I have no desire to look at your proposition since:

a function is continuous at a point x if lim as y tends to x of f(y) is f(x). So your result is a consequnce of the fact that log is continuous at 1, that's all.
 
So you're saying that if

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(x) = L[/tex]

And if g(x) is continuous at L, then

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} g(f(x)) = \lim_{x \rightarrow L} g(x)[/tex]

is that right?

I can see from the definition of continuity how it's true for x --> x0 an accumulation point of the domain of f and if f(x0) is an accumulation point of the domain of g but for x --> infinity, I wasn't sure.
 
g doesn't have to be continuous at L for your last post to be true-it's just a statement of the limit of g, not how this limit relates to g(L).

You need continuity of g at L if you want to assert that

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(x) = L[/tex]

implies

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} g(f(x)) = \lim_{x \rightarrow L} g(x)=g(L)[/tex]

which is what you're using for this problem.
 
Ok, so for my problem, since log is continuous at 1, all I have to do is prove that the function [itex]f(x) = (x-1)/(x+1)[/itex] as x approches infinity is 1. I have never done that. So if someone could check and see if these steps are correct, I'd be very grateful.

We want to show that [itex]\forall \epsilon > 0[/itex], there is an M such that for x element of the domain of f (i.e element of the real), x > M implies

[tex]\left |\frac{x-1}{x+1}-1 \right| < \epsilon[/tex]

We see that

[tex]\left|\frac{x-1}{x+1}-1 \right| = \left|\frac{x-1}{x+1}-\frac{x+1}{x+1} \right| = \left|\frac{x-1-x-1}{x+1} \right| = \left|\frac{-2}{x+1} \right| = \left|\frac{2}{x+1} \right| = \frac{2}{\left|{x+1} \right|}[/tex]

and

[tex]\frac{2}{\left|{x+1} \right|} < \epsilon \Leftrightarrow |x+1|>\frac{2}{\epsilon}[/tex]

But [itex]|x+1| \leq |x|+1[/itex]. Therefor, if we can show that

[tex]|x|+1>\frac{2}{\epsilon} \Leftrightarrow |x|>\frac{2}{\epsilon}-1 \ \forall \epsilon>0[/tex]

we will have won. We can suppose without loss of generality that [itex]M \geq 0 \Rightarrow x>0 \Rightarrow |x| = x[/itex]. So that choosing M = max{0, [itex]\frac{2}{\epsilon}-1[/itex]} does the trick.
 
You hit a snag when you applied the triangle inequality. Knowing [itex]|x+1| \leq |x|+1[/itex] will not help you get a lower bound for [itex]|x+1|[/itex]. Try looking at [itex]|x+1|\geq |x|-|1|[/itex].
 
Right! I did that part too mechanically. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K