Clarification of Delta-Epsilon Proof

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dethrone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion clarifies the Delta-Epsilon proof for the limit \lim_{x\to-2}\left(x^2-x-3\right)=3. The proof demonstrates that for any \epsilon>0, a corresponding \delta can be defined as \delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right) to satisfy the condition |x^2-x-6|<\epsilon whenever 0<|x+2|<\delta. The discussion also addresses the implications of the inequality -6 PREREQUISITES

  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with Delta-Epsilon definitions
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
  • Knowledge of inequalities and absolute values
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the formal definition of limits using Delta-Epsilon proofs
  • Explore examples of limit proofs in calculus textbooks
  • Practice problems involving Delta-Epsilon definitions
  • Learn about the implications of bounding variables in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students in calculus courses, mathematics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of limit proofs and Delta-Epsilon concepts.

Dethrone
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
I read this somewhere:

MarkFL said:
I can give you an example I posted as a solution at another forum a couple of years ago:

We are given to prove:

[math]\lim_{x\to-2}\left(x^2-x-3\right)=3[/math]

For any given [math]\epsilon>0[/math] we wish to find a [math]\delta[/math] so that:

[math]\left|x^2-x-3-3\right|=\left|x^2-x-6\right|<\epsilon[/math] whenever [math]0<|x+2|<\delta[/math]

To do this, consider:

[math]\left|x^2-x-6\right|=|x+2||x-3|[/math]

Thus, to make:

[math]|x+2||x-3|<\epsilon[/math]

we need only make:

[math]0<|x+2|<\frac{\epsilon}{|x-3|}[/math]

Now, we want to define [math]\delta=\frac{\epsilon}{|x-3|}[/math], but we cannot because [math]\delta[/math] is supposed to be dependent on [math]\epsilon[/math] only. To get around this, we will replace [math]|x-3|[/math] with a number [math]M[/math] which satisfies:

[math]|x-3|\le M[/math]

So now we may write:

[math]|x+2|<\frac{\epsilon}{M}[/math]

and proceed as before, taking [math]\delta=\frac{\epsilon}{M}[/math]. But, we have a problem, as there is no number [math]M[/math] that satisfies:

[math]|x-3|\le M[/math] for all real numbers $x$. However, we are only interested in those close to [math]x=1[/math]. It doesn't matter how close, we just want to bound [math]|x-3|[/math] by restricting $x$ near 1, and any restriction will do. For example, if we require:

[math]0<|x+2|<1[/math], i.e., $x$ should be less than 1 unit away from 1, or equivalently [math]\delta=1[/math], then we have:

[math]-1<x+2<1[/math]

[math]-6<x-3<-4[/math]

We can now take [math]M=6[/math], so we should let [math]\delta=\frac{\epsilon}{6}[/math]. Remember that we also need:

[math]|x+2|<1[/math] so that we define [math]\delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)[/math], then:

[math]0<|x+2|<\delta[/math] implies [math]|x+2|<1[/math] and [math]|x+2|<\frac{\epsilon}{6}[/math]. We can now write the proof.

Let [math]\epsilon>0[/math] and define [math]\delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)[/math]. Then if [math]0<|x+2|<\delta[/math], we have:

[math]\left|x^2-x-6\right|=|x+2||x-3|[/math]

[math]\left|x^2-x-6\right|<6|x+2|[/math] since [math]|x+2|<\delta[/math] and [math]\delta\le1[/math]

[math]\left|x^2-x-6\right|<6\left(\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)=\epsilon[/math] since [math]|x+2|<\delta[/math] and [math]\delta\le\frac{\epsilon}{6}[/math]

Therefore, we have shown that [math]0<|x+2|<\delta[/math] implies [math]\left|x^2-x-6\right|<\epsilon[/math] which shows

[math]\lim_{x\to1}\left(x^2-x-3\right)=3[/math] by definition.

Somewhere in the middle, you have $\displaystyle -6<x-3<-4$, which, in my textbook says we can rewrite as $|x-3|<6$. Why does that hold? Doesn't that interval consist of $-6<x-3<6$, so you are actually enlarging the domain? Or is that why we need the notation, $\displaystyle \delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)$ to say that even if it does takes on values of $-4 < x < 6$ which were part of the added domain, it must always be less than $1$ too?

For the notation $\delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)$ , what does that actually mean? Does it mean that the value of which we are actually restricting $\delta$ should actually be the smaller of the two conditions, whatever it may be?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rido12 said:
I read this somewhere:
Somewhere in the middle, you have $\displaystyle -6<x-3<-4$, which, in my textbook says we can rewrite as $|x-3|<6$. Why does that hold? Doesn't that interval consist of $-6<x-3<6$, so you are actually enlarging the domain? Or is that why we need the notation, $\displaystyle \delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)$ to say that even if it does takes on values of $-4 < x < 6$ which were part of the added domain, it must always be less than $1$ too?

For the notation $\delta=\min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)$ , what does that actually mean? Does it mean that the value of which we are actually restricting $\delta$ should actually be the smaller of the two conditions, whatever it may be?

Hi Rido12,

The inequality $-6 < x - 3 < -4$, although not equivalent to $|x - 3| < 6$, does imply $-6 < x - 3 < 6$ and therefore $|x - 3| < 6$.

Having $\delta = \min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{6}\right)$ means that $\delta$ is the smaller of the numbers $1$ and $\frac{\epsilon}{6}$. In particular, $\delta \le 1$ and $\delta \le \frac{\epsilon}{6}$. More precisely, if $\epsilon < 6$, then $\epsilon/6 < 1$ and thus $\delta = \frac{\epsilon}{6}$. On the other hand, if $\epsilon \ge 6$, then $\frac{\epsilon}{6} \ge 1$ and so $\delta = 1$.
 
Ah, that makes sense...while $-6 < x - 3 < -4$ implies $|x - 3| < 6$, the opposite isn't true, which is because we're saying that $x-3$ is within -6 and 6, which is true. Makes a lot of sense now!

My professor does/teaches these proofs in like 1 minute each, he doesn't even take time to breathe in the 50 minutes he lectures nor does he stop to clarify anything. So basically my class just scribbles everything down not knowing what is happening, which is also hard because he uses chalk faster than we can scribble on paper...(Crying)
 
Rido12 said:
Ah, that makes sense...while $-6 < x - 3 < -4$ implies $|x - 3| < 6$, the opposite isn't true, which is because we're saying that $x-3$ is within -6 and 6, which is true. Makes a lot of sense now!

My professor does/teaches these proofs in like 1 minute each, he doesn't even take time to breathe, nor does he stop to clarify anything. So basically my class just scribbles every down not knowing what is happening, which is also hard because he uses chalk faster than we can scribble on paper...(Crying)

Sounds like a fast paced class, but don't worry because there are people here who can break these concepts down for you so you can understand! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K