Proof of lim(1/x) x->0 by negating epsilon delta definition of limit

In summary, the conversation discusses how to show that the limit \lim_{x \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{x} does not exist by negating the epsilon-delta definition of limit. The approach involves finding an \epsilon such that \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon, then using the triangle inequality and setting |x| < min( \delta , \frac{1}{\epsilon - |L|} ), which satisfies the condition for some epsilon and L. The conversation also touches on the modification of the definition for limits involving infinity.
  • #1
can93
3
0

Homework Statement


I want to show that [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{x}[/itex] does not exist by negating epsilon-delta definition of limit.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


We say limit exists when:
[itex]\forall \epsilon > 0, \exists \delta > 0 : \forall x(0< \left| x\right| < \delta \Rightarrow \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| < \epsilon) [/itex]
And limit does not exist corresponds to:
[itex]\exists \epsilon > 0, \forall \delta > 0 : \exists x(0< \left| x\right| < \delta \wedge \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon) [/itex] (for any L ?)

We look for an \epsilon such that

[itex]\left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon [/itex]

then using triangle inequality,

[itex]\left| \frac{1}{x}\right| + \left| L \right| ≥ \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon [/itex]

therefore

[itex]\left| \frac{1}{x}\right| + \left| L \right| > \epsilon [/itex]

and

[itex]| \frac{1}{x}| > \epsilon - \left| L \right| [/itex]

for [itex] \epsilon > |L|[/itex], ( the other possibility gives no info since |x| > 0 already)

[itex]|x| < \frac{1}{\epsilon - |L|}[/itex]

we also had

[itex]0<|x|<\delta[/itex]

hence,

[itex]|x| < min( \delta , \frac{1}{\epsilon - |L|} )[/itex]

we found such x satisfies the above condition, for some epsilon and L.
Is that approach correct?? Especially, I am not really sure about the negation of the definition...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ah now you have to make some alterations to the definition for it to work properly. You have a limit involving an infinite quantity which requires a change in your definition to be :

[itex]\forall ε>0, \exists δ>0 | 0<|x-a|<δ \Rightarrow f(x)>ε[/itex]

So for f(x) = 1/x, you desire a δ which ensures that f will be bigger than epsilon no matter what. You can start finding this delta by massaging the expression f(x) > ε to suit your needs.
 
  • #3
alright,

for limits not dealing with infinity, is my negation correct??
 
  • #4
can93 said:
alright,

for limits not dealing with infinity, is my negation correct??

I'm not sure why you would want to negate the statement because |f(x)-L| which translates into |f(x)-∞| is for lack of better term, a garbage statement.

That's why I suggested using the modified form of the definition so it at least makes sense.

To answer your question though, I don't see a problem with your negation.
 

Q1. What is the proof for the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 using negating epsilon delta definition?

The proof involves showing that for any given epsilon value, there exists a corresponding delta value such that the absolute value of 1/x - L (where L is the limit) is less than epsilon when x is within delta of 0.

Q2. Why is the epsilon delta definition used to prove limits?

The epsilon delta definition is used because it is a rigorous and precise way to prove the existence of a limit. It allows for any desired level of accuracy, as epsilon can be chosen to be arbitrarily small, and it considers all values of x within a certain distance of the limit point.

Q3. How does the negation of the epsilon delta definition work in this proof?

The negation of the epsilon delta definition involves showing that there exists an epsilon value for which there is no corresponding delta value that satisfies the definition. This means that the limit does not exist, and therefore, the proof is successful in showing that the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 does not exist.

Q4. What assumptions are made in the proof of lim(1/x) x->0 by negating epsilon delta definition?

The proof assumes that the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 does not exist, and therefore, there is no delta value that satisfies the epsilon delta definition for any given epsilon. It also assumes that the function 1/x is continuous at 0.

Q5. Can this proof be used for any function with a limit at a specific point?

No, this proof can only be used for functions that do not have a limit at a specific point. If a function has a limit at a specific point, the epsilon delta definition can be used to prove the existence of the limit, rather than its non-existence.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
883
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
848
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
990
Back
Top