Calculus, Analytical demonstration

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on analytically demonstrating that if \(\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L\) and \(L<0\), then there exists a \(\delta>0\) such that for \(x\in Dom(f)\), \(0<|x-a|<\delta\) implies \(f(x)<0\). The participants utilize the definitions of limits and the properties of inequalities, particularly the Triangle Inequality, to derive the necessary conditions. The conclusion emphasizes that by selecting \(\epsilon\) appropriately, one can effectively show that \(f(x)<0\) under the given conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with the epsilon-delta definition of limits
  • Knowledge of the Triangle Inequality
  • Basic algebraic manipulation of inequalities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in more depth
  • Explore the properties of the Triangle Inequality in calculus
  • Practice problems involving limits approaching negative values
  • Investigate the relationship between epsilon and limits in various contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those focusing on limits and inequalities, as well as educators seeking to enhance their teaching of limit concepts.

araveugnitsug
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Demonstrate Analytically:
If [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L[/itex] and L<0, there exists a δ>0 so that x[itex]\in[/itex]Dom(f), 0<|x-a|<δ [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] f(x)<0

2. The attempt at a solution
I start identifying what I want to demonstrate and what are my assumptions.
x[itex]\in[/itex]Dom(f), 0<|x-a|<δ [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] f(x)<0
I'm aware I have to reach f(x)<0 from the fact that L<0 and using the definition of a limit, the x belonging to the domain is there so that it also covers the cases were if not stated, one could get a limit that does not exist due.

So I have:
0<|x-a|<δ and 0<|f(x)-L|<ε
and I suspect the way is not in the delta part but working with 0<|f(x)-L|<ε, but because epsilon is in relation to delta it never banish, meaning I would have to work with the other part.

0<|f(x)-L|
Because L<0 is part of the hypothesis
L<|f(x)-L|+L
L-|f(x)-L|<L
Triangle Inequality
L-|f(x)|-|L|<L
Because L<0 is part of the hypothesis
L-|f(x)|-(-L)<L
L-|f(x)|+L<L
L-|f(x)|<0
-|f(x)|<-L
L<-f(x)<-L
-L>f(x)>L
And I don't know where else to go to get the f(x)<0 form, I simply have no way to get rid of the L in the process without being left with an absolute value on f(x).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Using the definition of limit, take [itex]\epsilon[/itex] to be any number less than L.
 
It works wonderfully and makes it two simple steps. Thanks.

Though I'm inclined to ask; is this something that can always be done, correlating epsilon with the actual limit?
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K