Can You Prove Lim(x->0) g(x) Equals L When g(x)=f(ax)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rohitmishra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
rohitmishra
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Suppose f:R->R , Lim (x->0) f(x) = L. and a>0.

Define g:R->R by g(x)= f(ax). Prove that Lim (x->0) g(x) = L ?


My Solution.

I am not able to prove it as equal to L.

From what I get it is

Lim (x->0) g(x)

Lim (x->0) a * f(x)

a* Lim (x->0) f(x)

a* L = aL ??

I have to prove Lim (x->0) g(x) = L.

Help me out
 
Physics news on Phys.org


rohitmishra said:
...
Define g:R->R by g(x)= f(ax). Prove that Lim (x->0) g(x) = L ?
...
Lim (x->0) g(x)

Lim (x->0) a * f(x)

I do not see how you get the equality f(ax) = a*f(x). This is only true when f is linear on R.

If you do not have any theorems dealing with limits of compositions, then it is still easy to see that ax approaches 0 whenever x approaches 0. You have to rigorize this statement by noting that g(x) = f(u) when u = ax. The fact that the limit exists for f(u) as u approaches 0 gives you a predetermined delta neighborhood of u for any epsilon. You have to then show what delta neighborhood you should use for x = u/a.
 
Last edited:
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...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top