Can You Solve This Epsilon-Delta Proof of a Function's Limit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nietzsche
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the limit of a piecewise function defined on the set of numbers that can be expressed as \(\frac{1}{n}\), where \(n\) is a natural number. The function \(f\) takes the value 0 for inputs in this set and the value of the input itself otherwise. Participants are tasked with demonstrating that \(\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = a\) for various cases of \(a\).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the behavior of the function in different intervals, particularly focusing on cases where \(a\) is in or out of the set \(A\). There are attempts to establish conditions for \(\delta\) in relation to \(\epsilon\) and discussions about the implications of choosing specific values for these parameters. Questions arise regarding the handling of edge cases, such as when \(a = 0\).

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their reasoning and seeking confirmation on their thought processes. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between \(\delta\) and \(\epsilon\), but no consensus has been reached on the overall approach or resolution of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the proof and express uncertainty about specific steps, particularly in relation to the definitions and implications of the function at critical points. There is also mention of a lemma that may relate to the problem, but its relevance is not fully explored within the current discussion.

nietzsche
Messages
185
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Similar to the problem I just posted, here's another one:

Suppose [tex]A[/tex] is the set of all numbers that can be written as [tex]\dfrac{1}{n}[/tex], where [tex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/tex].

Define a function [tex]f[/tex] such that

[tex] \begin{equation*}<br /> f(x) = \left\{<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & : x \in A\\<br /> x & : x \not \in A<br /> \end{array}<br /> \end{equation*}[/tex]

Prove that

[tex] \lim_{x \to a} f(x) = a[/tex]

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



Proof:

For [tex]x \in (-\infty, 0)\cup(1,\infty) \Rightarrow f(x) = x[/tex]

which is a continuous function. Thus

[tex] \lim_{x \to a} f(x) = f(a) = a[/tex]Now consider the interval [tex](0, 1][/tex]. Suppose [tex]a[/tex] is in this interval. If [tex]a \not \in A[/tex], then [tex]\delta[/tex] can be chosen sufficiently small so that the open interval [tex](a-\delta, a+\delta)[/tex] does not contain any [tex]x \in A[/tex]. In this subinterval, [tex]f(x) = x[/tex] and

[tex] \lim_{x \to a} f(x) = f(a) = a[/tex]

Now suppose [tex]a \in A[/tex]. Then [tex]a[/tex] can be written as [tex]a = \dfrac{1}{n}[/tex].
Choose [tex]\delta = |\dfrac{1}{n}-\dfrac{1}{n+1}| = |\dfrac{1}{n(n+1)}|[/tex].
Thus [tex]\delta[/tex] is the minimum distance to the next [tex]x \in A[/tex].

Once I get here, I'm stuck... I'm trying to show that if delta is the minimum distance to the next x in A, then for all [tex]x \not = a[/tex] in that subinterval, [tex]f(x) = x[/tex]. But I'm confused about what to do next. I'm not sure what this implies with regards to epsilon.

I'm also not sure what to do for x = 0.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I've had a think about it and I think this is what it means...

If [tex]\epsilon \geq \dfrac{1}{n(n+1)}[/tex] then take [tex]\delta = \dfrac {1}{n(n+1)}[/tex].

If [tex]0 < \epsilon < \dfrac{1}{n(n+1)}[/tex] then take [tex]\delta = \epsilon[/tex].

Ugh, the way I've chosen to do it seems complicated...
 
can anyone confirm that what I'm on the right track here?
 
nietzsche said:

Homework Statement



Similar to the problem I just posted, here's another one:

Suppose [tex]A[/tex] is the set of all numbers that can be written as [tex]\dfrac{1}{n}[/tex], where [tex]n \in \mathbb{N}[/tex].

Define a function [tex]f[/tex] such that

[tex] \begin{equation*}<br /> f(x) = \left\{<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & : x \in A\\<br /> x & : x \not \in A<br /> \end{array}<br /> \end{equation*}[/tex]

Prove that

[tex] \lim_{x \to a} f(x) = a[/tex]


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Proof:

For [tex]x \in (-\infty, 0)\cup(1,\infty) \Rightarrow f(x) = x[/tex]

which is a continuous function. Thus

[tex] \lim_{x \to a} f(x) = f(a) = a[/tex]


Now consider the interval [tex](0, 1][/tex]. Suppose [tex]a[/tex] is in this interval. If [tex]a \not \in A[/tex], then [tex]\delta[/tex] can be chosen sufficiently small so that the open interval [tex](a-\delta, a+\delta)[/tex] does not contain any [tex]x \in A[/tex]. In this subinterval, [tex]f(x) = x[/tex] and

[tex] \lim_{x \to a} f(x) = f(a) = a[/tex]

Now suppose [tex]a \in A[/tex]. Then [tex]a[/tex] can be written as [tex]a = \dfrac{1}{n}[/tex].
Choose [tex]\delta = |\dfrac{1}{n}-\dfrac{1}{n-1}| = |\dfrac{1}{n(n+1)}|[/tex].
Thus [tex]\delta[/tex] is the minimum distance to the next [tex]x \in A[/tex].

Once I get here, I'm stuck... I'm trying to show that if delta is the minimum distance to the next x in A, then for all [tex]x \not = a[/tex] in that subinterval, [tex]f(x) = x[/tex]. But I'm confused about what to do next. I'm not sure what this implies with regards to epsilon.
. There is nothing much else to be done. For that delta, as you say, [itex]f(x)= x[/itex] so |f(x)- a|= |x- a|. Now, if we call that "delta" [itex]\delta_1[/itex], we can take [itex]\delta[/itex] to be the smaller of [itex]\delta_1[/itex] and [itex]\epsilon[/itex]. If [itex]0< |x-a|< \delta[/itex], then, since |x- a|< delta so |f(x)- a|= |x- a|< [itex]\epsilon[/itex]

I'm also not sure what to do for x = 0.
If a= 0, then, for any [itex]\epsilon> 0[/itex], there exist x in A less than [itex]\epsilon[/itex] so that f(x)= 0. But now |f(x)- a|= |f(x)| so that's not a problem.
 
Thanks very much for the clarification.
 
Both of these problems are trivial in light of one lemma. The set up for the lemma is this: Let [tex]f[/tex] be a function on a set [tex]S[/tex] and suppose that [tex]\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = b[/tex]

Now let [tex] <br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> f_{a}(x) = \left\{<br /> \begin{array}{cc}<br /> f(x) & : x \neq a\\<br /> \alpha & : x = a<br /> \end{array}<br /> \end{equation*}[/tex]

Where [tex]\alpha[/tex] is arbitrary (in fact, we don't even need to define [tex]f_{a}[/tex] at [tex]a[/tex]). What can you say about [tex]\lim_{x \to a}f_{a}[/tex]?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K