Basic limit proof of limit equivalence

a_skier
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that limx\rightarrowcf(x)=L if and only if limh\rightarrow0f(x+h)=L.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I think this is a simple problem, but I am getting caught up in the middle, as I'm not sure if my procedure is a valid way to prove the statement.

Suppose limx\rightarrowcf(x)=L.

Then for each \epsilon>0 there is a \delta>0 so that

if |x-c|<\delta then |f(x)-L|<\epsilon.

Let x=c+h. Then if |x-c|<δ \Rightarrow |c+h-c|<δ \Rightarrow |h|<δ. Furthermore, |f(c+h)-L|<ε. And since we assumed limx\rightarrowcf(x)=L, it follows then that limh\rightarrow0f(c+h)=L.*

So my questions is this: it is valid to simply let x=c+h as I did?

*Note, I did not prove the other case, but I just wrote this out so you guys can get a good idea of what my argument is and tell me if it is wrong or not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is the right approach, but your arrows don't point the way you want them to. To show that if h goes to zero, f(c+h) goes to L, you need to start with: if |h| < δ, things happen. You started by assuming that |x-c| < δ, then showed for your choice of defining h that |h| < δ as well, which isn't good enough. But all the stuff you wrote down is reversible, so you should be able to start with |h| < δ and then use what you know about f(x) when x=c+h.
 
Thank you very much Office_Shredder! One question though: I thought that I had to prove it in both orders, since it is an if and only if statement. Your route certainly seems more sensible but if I were to write the complete solution, wouldn't I assume in one case that as h goes to zero f(c+h) goes to f(c) and show that f(x) going to f(c) follows, and then start over and assume that as x goes to c f(x) goes to f(c) and show that f(c+h) going to f(c) follows from there? What I am asking is if I wanted to prove A iff B, wouldn't I do:

If A is true, then B follows.
If B is true, then A follows.

Thus, A is true iff B is true. ? (Hopefully that example makes more sense than the above).

Again, thank you!
 
Yes, but it's important to prove if A then B in the section where you are claiming if A then B. If you want to assume
\lim_{x\to c} f(x) = L
and then prove that
\lim_{h\to 0} f(c+h) = L,
then you better at some point have h be an arbitrary number such that |h| < δ
 
Ohhhhh! I see. Thank you!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top