Basic epsilon and delta proofs, limits, quick questions.

This is possible because ##\|h\|## is a function of ##h_1## and ##h_2##, so you can manipulate it to make ##|R(h)/\|h\|| < \epsilon##.
  • #1
binbagsss
1,259
11
I am trying to check whether lim h→0 (R(h)/||h||) =0 or not.
I am working in ℝ2.
h=h1e1+h2e2**
=> ||h||=(h1^2+h2^2)^1/2

I am using the definition that (R(h)/||h||)<ε * whenever 0<|h|<δ for all h.

Example 1
(R(h)/||h||)=h1h2/(h1^2+h2^2)^3/2
I can see that the denominator dominates, so expect the limit not to exist, so in order to proove this explicitly/epsilon-delta method I look for a counter example.

I consider h1=h2. In which case I get:
(R(h)/||h||) = 1/[2^(3/2).||h||].

My problem... My book then says 'no matter how small δ is, there are therefore points with (R(h)/||h||)>ε, for every ε.'

I am don't understand this, first of all , because the expression involves 1/||h||, I thought we would be looking to increase δ to attain *<ε.
Secondly, why can't you simply take δ=1/[ε.2^(3/2)]?

Question 2
On concepts of the definition, I am confused as to whether δ can be a function of h1 and h2,as defined by **, as well as ε. I know that the definition must hold for all h, so intuitively no, but aren't h1 and h2 completely arbitary?

Many thanks for anyone who can shed some light on this, greatly appreciated :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
binbagsss said:
I am don't understand this, first of all , because the expression involves 1/||h||, I thought we would be looking to increase δ to attain *<ε.
Secondly, why can't you simply take δ=1/[ε.2^(3/2)]?
As ##h## approaches zero, ##\|h\|## also approaches zero, so ##1/\|h\|## becomes arbitrarily large: it certainly does not approach zero.

To state this more explicitly, choose any ##\epsilon > 0##. Now ##1/\|h\| > \epsilon## whenever ##\|h\| < 1/\epsilon##. This is exactly the opposite of what would happen if the limit was zero!

Question 2
On concepts of the definition, I am confused as to whether δ can be a function of h1 and h2,as defined by **, as well as ε. I know that the definition must hold for all h, so intuitively no, but aren't h1 and h2 completely arbitary?
No, the ##\delta## can depend on ##\epsilon## but not on ##h_1## and ##h_2##. Given ##\epsilon##, you need to find a ##\delta## such that ##|R(h)/\|h\|| < \epsilon## for all ##h_1## and ##h_2## that satisfy ##0 < \sqrt{h_1^2 + h_2^2} < \delta##.
 

Related to Basic epsilon and delta proofs, limits, quick questions.

1. What is an epsilon-delta proof?

An epsilon-delta proof is a type of mathematical proof used to formally prove the existence of a limit. It involves using precise definitions of limit, epsilon, and delta to demonstrate that, as the input approaches a certain value, the output approaches a specific value.

2. How do you write an epsilon-delta proof?

To write an epsilon-delta proof, you start by stating the limit definition and setting up the inequalities for epsilon and delta. Then, you manipulate these inequalities to find a relationship between epsilon and delta. Finally, you use this relationship to find a value for delta that satisfies the limit definition.

3. What is the purpose of epsilon and delta in a proof?

Epsilon and delta are used in a proof to define a precise relationship between the input and output values of a function. Epsilon represents the distance between the input and the limit, while delta represents the distance between the output and the limit. By manipulating the inequalities for epsilon and delta, we can find a value for delta that ensures the output is as close as we want it to be to the limit.

4. Can an epsilon-delta proof be used for all functions?

Yes, an epsilon-delta proof can be used for all continuous functions. This is because the definition of continuity relies on the concept of a limit, and epsilon-delta proofs are used to prove the existence of a limit.

5. What are some common mistakes to avoid when writing an epsilon-delta proof?

Some common mistakes to avoid when writing an epsilon-delta proof include using the wrong definition of limit, not setting up the inequalities correctly, and not manipulating the inequalities properly. It is also important to be careful with the order of your statements and to clearly explain each step in your proof.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top