Proof of Continuity of y^2 | Real Analysis I Course

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Someone2841
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the continuity of the function \(y^2\) within the context of a Real Analysis I course. Participants evaluate the structure and rigor of the proof, addressing various cases and conditions necessary for establishing continuity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the proof's validity, suggesting that the dependence of delta on epsilon is not adequately addressed.
  • Another participant proposes a specific choice for delta, stating it should be defined as \(\delta = \frac{\epsilon}{3|u|}\) under certain conditions to maintain clarity in the proof.
  • A participant emphasizes the need for clarity in defining variables, particularly the role of \(u\) and the conditions under which delta is chosen.
  • Concerns are raised about the structure of the proof, with suggestions to avoid unnecessary explanations and to present definitions more directly.
  • One participant suggests an alternative approach by rewriting \(y\) in terms of a small increment, which simplifies the continuity condition.
  • Another participant points out that the proof should explicitly state that \(|y^2| < \epsilon\) rather than \(|y^2| = \epsilon\) in the case where \(u=0\).
  • There is a discussion about whether certain implications in the proof are obvious enough to be stated without further justification.
  • Participants express varying degrees of agreement on the necessity of including proofs for certain implications and the clarity of the proof's structure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof's adequacy, with multiple competing views on the structure, clarity, and rigor of the arguments presented. Some participants agree on certain aspects of the proof while others challenge specific claims and suggest revisions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential ambiguities in the definitions of variables and the conditions under which delta is chosen. There are unresolved questions about the implications of certain inequalities and the necessity of including proofs for specific statements.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and educators in real analysis, particularly those interested in the rigor of mathematical proofs and the nuances of continuity arguments.

Someone2841
Messages
43
Reaction score
6
I wrote up a proof for the continuity of y^2 for practice. Is this acceptable in the context of a Real Analysis I course?

space;as&space;simple&space;as&space;picking&space;}&space;\delta&space;=&space;\sqrt{\epsilon}..gif
QED

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Case one is only taken care of when epsilon is big, which is the uninteresting case. The fact that delta is not a function of epsilon should be an immediate giveaway that you haven't constructed a proof
 
Office_Shredder said:
Case one is only taken care of when epsilon is big, which is the uninteresting case. The fact that delta is not a function of epsilon should be an immediate giveaway that you haven't constructed a proof

I think I do address this. I set ##\delta = \frac{\epsilon}{3|y|}## when ##\frac{\epsilon}{3|y|} < \frac{|y|}{2}## so that the restriction ##\delta < |y|## is maintained. In the proof I state
%20%5Cdelta%20%3D%20min%28%5Cfrac%7B%5Cepsilon%7D%7B3%7Cy%7C%7D%2C%5Cfrac%7B%7Cy%7C%7D%7B2%7D%29.gif
.
 
That's what I get for trying to read the forums on my cell phone at one in the morning. OK, I re-read it on my laptop and I think it looks pretty good... your original statement doesn't actually say what u is (it looks like it gets cut off) and I think any correct statement should specify that delta depends on u - in particular you should say for any u we can show there exists delta, as opposed to there exists delta for any u.

When you write
[tex]\delta 3 |y| = \epsilon[/tex]
that should really be a less than or equal to sign, because if delta happened to be |y|/2 (in the event where epsilon IS big) then this is not going to be an equality. Also the proof would be better structured by removing the "One can easily see that... with this in mind pick delta " and replace it with writing down what delta is going to be equal to, and then stating all the consequences - your proof does not require you to explain why you make a choice of definition before stating it (this is something that took me a long time to get over doing and I still do from time to time, and it is a bad habit). It's not wrong but it's not the cleanest way to structure a final proof.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks Office_Shreader for your feedback! I will try to amend my proof accordingly:


Let ##f:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}## be a function such that ## y \mapsto y^2##. To show continuity at every point of ##f##, it is sufficient to demonstrate:
##\forall u \;\; \forall \epsilon > 0 \;\; \exists \delta : \forall y \; \left ( |y-u| < \delta \implies |y^2 - u^2| \right ) ##​

Choose any ##\epsilon > 0## and real ##u##.

Case 1: ##u=0##
Let ##\delta = \sqrt{\epsilon}##. It is clear that ##|y| < \sqrt{\epsilon} \implies |y^2| = \epsilon##.​

Case 2: ##u \neq 0##
Choose any ##\delta > 0## such that ##\delta \leq \frac{\epsilon}{3|u|}## and ##\delta \leq \frac{|u|}{2}##. (Note: If ##|y-u| \geq \delta## then the continuity condition is met and the argument is complete; assume ##|y-u| < \delta## holds for the remainder of the proof) Since ##\delta \leq \frac{|u|}{2} < |u|##, it follows ##|y+u| < 3|u|##. Therefore, ##|y^2-u^2| = |y+u||y-u| < 3|u| \delta \leq \epsilon ## ■


I want to make sure of a few things:
  1. ##\delta## can be a function of both ##\epsilon## and ##u## (but not ##y##) for pointwise continuity since they both proceed ##\delta##'s quantifier?
  2. Is ##(|y-u| < \delta) \wedge (\delta < |u|) \implies |y+u| < 3|u|## obvious enough to state without proof?
  3. Obviously, once ##\delta## is chosen, ##|y-u|## could be ##\geq \delta## since both were chosen arbitrarily and without respect to ##\delta##. If this inequality does not hold, neither do the following arguments. Is the parenthetical "(Note: If ##|y-u| \geq \delta## then the continuity condition is met and the argument is complete; assume ##|y-u| < \delta## holds for the remainder of the proof)" sufficient to tackle this problem?
 
to me the easiest way to see this is to write y as y0+d. then (y0+d)^2 = y0^2 + 2dy0 + d^2.

then to have y^2 - y0^2 < e, you just have to make both 2dy0 and d^2 less than e/2.

e.g. take d < min(1, e/2), and also d < e/(2y0).

oh now i see why you took y0 ≠ 0. but of course if y0 = 0, then 2dy0 is always < e/2 for any d, so you don't need to worry about that case.
 
Someone2841 said:
Let ##f:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}## be a function such that ## y \mapsto y^2##. To show continuity at every point of ##f##, it is sufficient to demonstrate:
##\forall u \;\; \forall \epsilon > 0 \;\; \exists \delta : \forall y \; \left ( |y-u| < \delta \implies |y^2 - u^2| \right ) ##​
You need a < ε at the end here, but the statement looks good other than that.

Case 1: ##u=0##
Let ##\delta = \sqrt{\epsilon}##. It is clear that ##|y| < \sqrt{\epsilon} \implies |y^2| = \epsilon##.​

It should read [itex]|y^2| < \epsilon[/itex]


  1. ##\delta## can be a function of both ##\epsilon## and ##u## (but not ##y##) for pointwise continuity since they both proceed ##\delta##'s quantifier?


  1. Yes, this is correct.

    [*]Is ##(|y-u| < \delta) \wedge (\delta < |u|) \implies |y+u| < 3|u|## obvious enough to state without proof?

    I would probably include the proof for this but I don't think one way or the other matters that much.

    [*] Obviously, once ##\delta## is chosen, ##|y-u|## could be ##\geq \delta## since both were chosen arbitrarily and without respect to ##\delta##. If this inequality does not hold, neither do the following arguments. Is the parenthetical "(Note: If ##|y-u| \geq \delta## then the continuity condition is met and the argument is complete; assume ##|y-u| < \delta## holds for the remainder of the proof)" sufficient to tackle this problem?

Anybody who's reading this proof is going to know that you only care about when |y-u|<δ, so you're OK with just noting it. You should be OK just saying "Pick any δ>0 such that... and assume that |y-u| < δ" instead of writing a whole three lines about it.
 
Thanks, Office_Shredder! Your feedback was very helpful.

mathwonk: I found your post quite insightful, even though I am going for a somewhat higher degree of rigor in my proof. Thanks!

I have created a similar thread here, which incorporates your feedback.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K