Please explain use of Heine in proof of simple theorem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the uniqueness of limits for functions, specifically using Heine's theorem. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the application of the uniqueness of limits of sequences to the context of functions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between limits of functions and sequences, questioning how the uniqueness of limits for sequences can be applied to functions. There is a focus on understanding the implications of Heine's theorem in this context.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the proof structure and the relationship between sequences and functions, suggesting that the uniqueness of limits for sequences can indeed inform the proof for functions. However, the original poster remains uncertain about the direct application of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

The original poster highlights a specific concern regarding the distinction between sequences and functions, indicating a potential gap in understanding how these concepts interrelate in the context of limits.

twoflower
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I don't fully understand the proof of uniqueness of limit of function. Our teacher proved it using the Heine's theorem. Here it is:

Proof:
Let [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = A[/itex] and [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = B[/itex].

Let [itex]\left{ x_{n} \right}[/itex] satisfies: [itex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n} = a[/itex]. Then


[tex] \Longrightarrow^{Heine}<br /> \begin{array}{cc}\lim f\left( x_{n} \right) = A\\\lim f\left( x_{n} \right) = B\end{array}\right[/tex]

Ok, I understand this, because according to Heine it's equivalent. But I don't get the next step:

[tex] \Longrightarrow^{\mbox{Uniqueness of limit of sequence}} A = B \Longrightarrow^{Heine 2} \mbox{Uniqueness of limit of function}[/tex]

How can I use the uniqueness of limit of sequence here, when [itex]f\left( x_{n} \right)[/itex] is not a sequence, but a function?

Thank you for the explanation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If lim(x->a) f(x)= A, then f(xn) MUST also converge to A for any sequence xn converging to a. If f converged to both A and B, then the sequence f(xn) must converge to both A and B which, apparently, you have already proved is impossible.

Actually the proof of the uniqueness the limit of a sequence can be modified to give directly a proof of the uniqueness of the limit of a function.

If f converges to both A and B, take &epsilon; to be half the distance from A to B. Then show that x can't be within &epsilon of both A and B.
 
HallsofIvy said:
...If f converged to both A and B, then the sequence f(xn) must converge to both A and B which, apparently, you have already proved is impossible.

Well, that's what I don't understand. I think that [itex]f\left(x_{n}\right)[/itex] is function, not sequence. Sequence goes only over integers, whereas [itex]f\left(x_{n}\right)[/itex] doesn't...That's why I can't use the uniqueness of limit of sequence directly here I think...Of course there are other ways how to prove the uniqueness of limit of function, I just want to understand this one.
 
Why can't you construct the sequence:
[tex]a_{n}=f(x_{n})[/tex]??
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K