Confusion regarding a proof for an infinite limit property.

In summary: So we can pick an M (and a corresponding delta) as the proof describes.In summary, the given conversation discusses the proof to show that the limit of the sum of two functions, f(x) and g(x), as x approaches c is infinite, given the conditions that the limit of f(x) is infinite and the limit of g(x) is a real number L. By choosing a value M greater than 0 and using the definitions of infinite limits, it is shown that f(x) can be made larger than any given number, including M - L + 1, by choosing an appropriate delta. This proves that the limit of the sum of f(x) and g(x) is infinite.
  • #1
InaudibleTree
9
0
Assume for some real number L and c

[itex]\displaystyle\lim_{x\rightarrow c} f(x) = ∞[/itex] and [itex]\displaystyle\lim_{x\rightarrow c} g(x) = L[/itex]

We must prove

[itex]\displaystyle\lim_{x\rightarrow c} [f(x) + g(x)] = ∞[/itex]

Let [itex]M > 0[/itex]. We know [itex]\displaystyle\lim_{x\rightarrow c} f(x) = ∞[/itex]. Thus,

there exists [itex]δ_1>0[/itex] such that if [itex]0 < |x - c| < δ_1[/itex] we have,

[itex]f(x) > M - L + 1[/itex].

Also, we know [itex]\displaystyle\lim_{x\rightarrow c} g(x) = L[/itex]. Thus,

there exists [itex]δ_2 > 0[/itex] such that if [itex]0 < |x - c| < δ_2[/itex] we have,

[itex]0 < |g(x) - L| < 1 →→ -1 < g(x) - L < 1 →→ L - 1 < g(x) < L + 1[/itex]

Let [itex]δ = min(δ_1,δ_2)[/itex]. And so if [itex]0 < |x - c| < δ[/itex] we will have both,

[itex]f(x) > M - L + 1[/itex] and [itex]g(x) > L - 1[/itex]

Thus,

[itex] f(x) + g(x) > M - L + 1 + L - 1 = M [/itex]

Now what confuses me is how the proof can get to the point

[itex]f(x) > M - L + 1[/itex]

without the assumption that [itex] L > 0 [/itex].

Afterall following from the definition of an infinite limit

[itex]M - L + 1 > 0[/itex] and [itex] M > 0 [/itex]. Right?

Im sure I must be confusing something here. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
InaudibleTree said:
Now what confuses me is how the proof can get to the point

[itex]f(x) > M - L + 1[/itex]

.

The proof doesn't deduce that [itex] f(x) > M - L + 1 [/itex] from the step above your question.

The fact that [itex] f(x) > M - L + 1 [/itex] is established earlier in the proof. It is established from the fact that f(x) can be made larger than any given number, so in particular it can be made larger than the number M - L + 1 by the appropriate choice of a delta. The proof says to make an appropriate choice.
 
  • #3
Stephen Tashi said:
The proof doesn't deduce that [itex] f(x) > M - L + 1 [/itex] from the step above your question.

The fact that [itex] f(x) > M - L + 1 [/itex] is established earlier in the proof.

Im sorry I should of structured my post better. I knew the inequality given was established earlier in the proof.

It is established from the fact that f(x) can be made larger than any given number, so in particular it can be made larger than the number M - L + 1 by the appropriate choice of a delta. The proof says to make an appropriate choice.

I reread the definition of infinite limits. I think what you are saying makes sense.

Im really just allowed to choose an [itex]M>0[/itex](in this case [itex]M -L + 1[/itex]) and at some point(s) [itex]f(x) > M[/itex]. Afterall [itex]f[/itex] is defined at every real number in some open interval containing c.
 

1. What is an infinite limit property?

An infinite limit property is a mathematical concept that describes the behavior of a function as the input values approach infinity. It states that if a function has a limit of infinity at a certain point, then it will also have a limit of infinity at any point beyond that point, and vice versa.

2. Why is there confusion surrounding the proof for an infinite limit property?

The proof for an infinite limit property can be complex and involves advanced mathematical concepts, which can be confusing for some individuals. Additionally, there are different approaches to proving this property, which can further contribute to confusion.

3. How is the proof for an infinite limit property typically presented?

The proof for an infinite limit property is typically presented using mathematical notation and symbols, such as limits, functions, and variables. It may also involve the use of logical reasoning and mathematical theorems.

4. Are there any common misconceptions about the infinite limit property?

One common misconception is that the infinite limit property applies to all functions. However, this property only applies to specific types of functions, such as rational functions, exponential functions, and logarithmic functions.

5. How can one better understand the proof for an infinite limit property?

To better understand the proof for an infinite limit property, it is important to have a strong understanding of calculus, particularly limits and continuity. It may also be helpful to seek out additional resources, such as textbooks or online tutorials, and to work through practice problems.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
920
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
939
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
746
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top