Epsilon delta proof of a two-variable limit using inequalities

In summary, the conversation is about a student struggling with multivariable epsilon-delta limit proofs and seeking help to understand the concept. The student's teacher uses a specific method involving inequalities to prove limits and the student is interested in learning this method. The concept is explained using a metaphor of cooking pizzas in an oven, with the ideal cooking level being the limit and the time in the oven being the variable. The student is trying to understand the relationship between the tolerance (\epsilon) and the distance (\delta) from the limit, and how it applies to both one-variable and two-variable situations. The conversation concludes with a summary of what the student is trying to achieve in their proof.
  • #1
LeibnizIsBetter
Gold Member
MHB
3
0
I seem to be having trouble with multivariable epsilon-delta limit proofs. I don't have a very good intuition for how \(\displaystyle \epsilon\) relates to \(\displaystyle \delta\).

For example:

\(\displaystyle Prove \lim_{(x,y) \to (0,0)}\frac{2xy^2}{x^2+y^2} = 0\)

There are probably many ways to do this, but my teacher does it a certain way and I would like to learn his way first (although I am also interested in other techniques–perhaps using the polar coordinate system?).

He "massages" \(\displaystyle \left|f(x,y) - L\right| < \epsilon\) into a form compatible with \(\displaystyle \sqrt{(x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2} < \delta\) by using a series of inequalities.

\(\displaystyle
\left|\frac{2xy^2}{x^2 + y^2} - 0\right|
= \left|\frac{2\sqrt{x^2}y^2}{x^2 + y^2}\right|
\leq \left|\frac{2\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}y^2}{x^2 + y^2}\right|
= \left|\frac{2y^2}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}\right|
\leq \left|\frac{2(y^2 + x^2)}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}\right|
= 2\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}
\)

Step by step, I get this. But I'm not getting the bigger picture.

Could someone please explain to me how to use the above inequalities to prove the limit equals zero?

Thanks in advance. Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you're not really understanding the [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon - \delta \end{align*}[/tex] definitions of a limit, it might help with a metaphor.

When I do [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon - \delta \end{align*}[/tex] proofs, I think of myself pulling pizzas out of an oven (I used to work in a pizza shop). Think of there being an "ideal" level of cooking for your pizza. Obviously, it is not going to be possible to get this "ideal" amount of cooking for every pizza (or possibly even any pizza), but there is a certain "tolerance" you can have for over-cooking or under-cooking before you consider it raw or burnt. As long as you are reasonably close to the right amount of time needed, then your level of cooking will be considered acceptable. Then as you gain more experience, you should be able to get closer and closer to keeping the pizzas in the oven for the ideal amount of time, thereby making your pizzas closer and closer to the ideal level of cooking, which means you would expect that your tolerance would decrease as you'd be getting used to your pizzas being cooked properly.

So if we were to call the amount of time in the oven [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} x \end{align*}[/tex], then the level of cooking is some function of x [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} f(x) \end{align*}[/tex]. We said there is an ideal level of cooking, we could call that [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} L \end{align*}[/tex], which means there is a point in time [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} x = c \end{align*}[/tex] which gives this ideal level of cooking. Remember we said that as long as we have kept the pizzas in the oven for an amount of time reasonably close to [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} c \end{align*}[/tex], say [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta \end{align*}[/tex] units of time away from it, then our level of cooking would be considered acceptable, or within some tolerance which we could call [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex]. So we need to show that [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta \end{align*}[/tex] and [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex] are related, so that you are guaranteed that as you get experience and keep your pizzas in the oven closer to the right amount of time ( i.e. [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta \end{align*}[/tex] gets smaller) then so will your tolerance [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex] get smaller and closer to the ideal level of cooking.

Do you see now what it means to show [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} 0 < |x - c| < \delta \implies |f(x) - L | < \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex]? It means if you have set a tolerance around your ideal limiting value, then as long as you are reasonably close to [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} x = c \end{align*}[/tex], then you are guaranteed that your function value is within your tolerance away from the limiting value, and by showing the relationship between [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta \end{align*}[/tex] and [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex], you are guaranteed that as your [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta \end{align*}[/tex] gets smaller and you close in on [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} x = c \end{align*}[/tex], then your tolerance will get smaller and your [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} f(x) \end{align*}[/tex] will close in on [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} L \end{align*}[/tex].Mind you, this is only for a one-variable situation. But the same intuition applies for two-variable. The difference is that you are trying to show that no matter what point you start from, and what path you take to close in on the point, that being a certain distance close enough to the point you are approaching is enough to ensure that you are going to be within your tolerance. Surely you remember from high school that the distance between two points [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} (x,y) \end{align*}[/tex] and [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} (h,k) \end{align*}[/tex] can be found using Pythagoras, i.e. [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \sqrt{ \left( x - h \right) ^2 + \left( y - k \right) ^2} \end{align*}[/tex]. So to summarise what you are trying to do, you want to show that as long as your distance between the point where you are [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} (x, y) \end{align*}[/tex] is close enough to the point you are approaching [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} (h, k) \end{align*}[/tex], i.e. [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta \end{align*}[/tex] units, then you are guaranteed that your function will always be within the tolerance [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex] from your ideal/limiting value[tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} L \end{align*}[/tex].

So to prove that [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} \lim_{(x, y) \to (h, k)} f(x,y) = L \end{align*}[/tex] you have to show that [tex]\displaystyle \begin{align*} 0 < \sqrt{ \left( x - h \right) ^2 + \left( y- k \right) ^2 } < \delta \implies \left| f(x, y) - L \right| < \epsilon \end{align*}[/tex].

Hope that helped...
 
  • #3
LeibnizIsBetter said:
I seem to be having trouble with multivariable epsilon-delta limit proofs. I don't have a very good intuition for how \(\displaystyle \epsilon\) relates to \(\displaystyle \delta\).

For example:

\(\displaystyle Prove \lim_{(x,y) \to (0,0)}\frac{2xy^2}{x^2+y^2} = 0\)

There are probably many ways to do this, but my teacher does it a certain way and I would like to learn his way first (although I am also interested in other techniques–perhaps using the polar coordinate system?).

He "massages" \(\displaystyle \left|f(x,y) - L\right| < \epsilon\) into a form compatible with \(\displaystyle \sqrt{(x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2} < \delta\) by using a series of inequalities.

\(\displaystyle
\left|\frac{2xy^2}{x^2 + y^2} - 0\right|
= \left|\frac{2\sqrt{x^2}y^2}{x^2 + y^2}\right|
\leq \left|\frac{2\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}y^2}{x^2 + y^2}\right|
= \left|\frac{2y^2}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}\right|
\leq \left|\frac{2(y^2 + x^2)}{\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}}\right|
= 2\sqrt{x^2 + y^2}
\)

Step by step, I get this. But I'm not getting the bigger picture.

Could someone please explain to me how to use the above inequalities to prove the limit equals zero?

Thanks in advance. Any help is appreciated.
The most simple-minded way of thinking about the fraction \(\displaystyle \frac{2xy^2}{x^2 + y^2}\) is that the numerator is a cubic expression in $x$ and $y$, whereas the denominator is quadratic. So when $x$ and $y$ are small, the numerator has "three orders of smallness" but the denominator has only two. So the fraction as a whole has one "order of smallness" and therefore tends to $0$ as $(x,y)\to(0,0).$ Of course, that does not qualify as a mathematical argument, but you can make it rigorous either by your teacher's "massaging" method, or (in the case of this example) by using the fact that $|2xy|\leqslant x^2+y^2$. (That follows from the fact that $(|x|-|y|)^2\geqslant0$.) You can then see that \(\displaystyle \left|\frac{2xy^2}{x^2 + y^2}\right| = \left|\frac{(2xy)y}{x^2 + y^2}\right| \leqslant |y| \leqslant \sqrt{x^2+y^2}\), and now you can feed in the epsilons and deltas to complete the proof that \(\displaystyle \lim_{(x,y) \to (0,0)}\frac{2xy^2}{x^2+y^2} = 0\).
 
  • #4
For functions of two variables, like this, with (x, y) going to (0, 0), you might find it easier to switch to polar coordinates. That way the distance from (0, 0) is measured by the single variable, r.

Here, the denominator is [tex]x^2+ y^2[/tex] which is simply "[tex]r^2[/tex]". The numerator is [tex]2xy^2= 2(r cos(\theta))(r^2 sin^2(\theta))[/tex] so the fraction is
[tex]\frac{2r^3sin^2(\theta)cos(\theta)}{r^2}= 2rsin^2(\theta)cos(\theta)[/tex] and, as r goes to 0, that goes to 0 no matter what [tex]\theta[/tex] is. As for "[tex]\epsilon[/tex], [tex]\delta[/tex]", it is sufficient to note that [tex]2sin^2(\theta)cos(\theta)\le 2[/tex], so that [tex]|2r sin^2(\theta)cos(\theta)|\le 2 r[/tex]. Given any [tex]\epsilon> 0[/tex], we may choose [tex]\delta\le \frac{1}{2}\epsilon[/tex].
 

What is an epsilon delta proof?

An epsilon delta proof is a method used in calculus to formally prove the limit of a function. It involves choosing a small value, epsilon (ε), and a small distance, delta (δ), and showing that for any value of x that is within delta of the limit, the function's value will be within epsilon of the limit.

What is a two-variable limit?

A two-variable limit refers to the limit of a function with two independent variables, typically denoted as lim f(x,y), where x and y are the independent variables. It represents the behavior of the function as both variables approach a certain point.

How do you use inequalities in an epsilon delta proof?

In an epsilon delta proof, inequalities are used to show the relationship between the small values chosen for epsilon and delta, and the behavior of the function. The goal is to show that for any value of x within delta of the limit, the function's value will be within epsilon of the limit, using appropriate inequalities to establish this relationship.

What is the importance of using inequalities in epsilon delta proofs?

Inequalities are crucial in epsilon delta proofs as they allow us to show that the function's behavior is consistent and predictable. By using inequalities, we can prove that the limit of a function exists and is unique, providing a rigorous and formal justification for the limit.

What are some common mistakes to avoid in an epsilon delta proof?

Some common mistakes to avoid in an epsilon delta proof include using the wrong epsilon and delta values, not considering all possible cases, and making unsupported assumptions. It is important to carefully choose appropriate values for epsilon and delta, and to thoroughly analyze the behavior of the function to ensure a correct and complete proof.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
920
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
343
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
929
Back
Top