Proving Continuity of $\frac{x}{x-k}$ for $x\neq k$

  • Thread starter Thread starter daudaudaudau
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the continuity of the function $\frac{x}{x-k}$ for $x \neq k$ using the epsilon-delta definition. The initial approach involves manipulating the expression to show that for any $\varepsilon > 0$, a corresponding $\delta$ can be found to satisfy the continuity condition. An alternative method proposed simplifies the proof by first establishing the continuity of the functions $f(x) = x$ and $g(x) = (x - k)^{-1}$, which are continuous for all $x \neq k$. It is suggested that demonstrating the product of these continuous functions will confirm the continuity of the original function without extensive arithmetic. The conversation emphasizes the importance of finding a straightforward proof method.
daudaudaudau
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
So today I wanted to prove that x/(x-k) is continuous for x\neq k. I have to show that for all \varepsilon>0 there exists a \delta such that \left|x/(x-k)-x_0/(x_0-k)\right|<\varepsilon for all x satisfying |x-x_0|<\delta. This is how I did it (a bit long)

\begin{align*}\left|\frac{x}{x-k}-\frac{x_{0}}{x_{0}-k}\right| &amp; =\left|\frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{0}-k}+\frac{x}{x-k}-\frac{x}{x_{0}-k}\right|\\<br /> &amp; =\left|\frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{0}-k}+\frac{x\left((x_{0}-k)-(x-k)\right)}{(x-k)(x_{0}-k)}\right|\\<br /> &amp; =\left|\frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{0}-k}+\frac{(x-x_{0}+x_{0})\left((x_{0}-k)-(x-k)\right)}{(x-k)(x_{0}-k)}\right|\\<br /> &amp; \le\left|\frac{x-x_{0}}{x_{0}-k}\right|+\frac{|x-x_{0}|\left|x_{0}-x\right|}{\left|(x-k)(x_{0}-k)\right|}+\frac{|x_{0}|\left|x_{0}-x\right|}{\left|(x-k)(x_{0}-k)\right|}\\<br /> &amp; =\frac{\delta}{|x_{0}-k|}+\frac{\left(\delta+|x_{0}|\right)\delta}{\left|(x-k)(x_{0}-k)\right|}\\<br /> &amp; \le\frac{\delta}{|x_{0}-k|}+\frac{\left(\delta+|x_{0}|\right)\delta}{\left||x-x_{0}|-|x_{0}-k|\right||x_{0}-k|}\\<br /> &amp; =\frac{\delta}{|x_{0}-k|}+\frac{\left(\delta+|x_{0}|\right)\delta}{\left|\delta-|x_{0}-k|\right||x_{0}-k|}&lt;\varepsilon.\end{align*}<br />

Now at this point, what is the easiest way to argue that a \delta exists? Can this problem be solved with less arithmetic? I guess the idea is that you want an upper limit which consists of \delta and some constants, right?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Not sure if this approach is simpler but I would attack the problem in this fashion: First we prove that the functions f(x) = x and g(x) = (x - k)-1 are continuous for all real x with x != k. This is not only simple but also requires virtually no arithmetic - especially if you're familiar with limits. The only proof that is left then is to prove that the product of the functions must also be continuous for all x with x != k.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top