Continuity of sin(1/x) on (0,1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter rsa58
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the continuity of the function sin(1/x) on the interval (0,1). Participants explore various approaches to demonstrate this property, including definitions of continuity and theorems related to differentiability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants attempt to use the epsilon-delta definition of continuity to validate their reasoning about sin(1/x). Others question the validity of certain inequalities used in the proof. There are discussions about the implications of differentiability on continuity and the definitions of continuous functions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with different methods of proving continuity, including exploring theorems and definitions. Some express uncertainty about the necessity of epsilon-delta proofs, while others seek confirmation on the correctness of their approaches.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of the continuity of sin(x) and 1/x, as well as discussions about subsets and the implications of continuity on those subsets. Some participants raise concerns about the requirements for proving continuity in the context of the exercise.

rsa58
Messages
83
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


how do you show that sin(1/x) is continuous on (0,1)? (i know it's also continuous on (0, infinite)).


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



|f(x)-f(xo)| = |sin(1/x)- sin(1/xo)|= |2sin((xo-x)\2)cos((xo+x)/2)|

=< 2|sin((xo-x)/(2xox))|=< |(xo-x)/(xox)|. is this inequality true? a similar one is used in a different example. if it is, why? is it because sin(x)=<x ? when x is positive? now since x<1 choosing \delta=xo\epsilon then if

|xo-x|<\delta then |f(xo)-f(x)|<\epsilon

is this answer correct? what about the endpoints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i guess this is true for all xo and x different from 0 so it is true for (0, infinite) right?
 
A cheap way would be to use the theorem that differentiability implies continuity
The derivative of \sin(\frac{1}{x}) is \frac{-1}{x^2}\cos(\frac{1}{x}).
The only place where the derivative is undefined is at x=0 which is not in the given interval so the function is continuous on the interval.

I don't really like that way because it seems out of order (differentiability comes after continuity)

Here's another.
Definition of Continuity: The function is defined at every point on the interval and
\lim_{x\to c}f(x) = f(c)

We know that the function is defined at every point except 0, so it is defined in the interval.
The limit as x goes to c of the function is \sin(\frac{1}{c}) which is defined and equal to f(c) at every point except c=0, which isn't in the interval
Therefore, the function is continuous on (0,1)
 
sinx is continuous, and 1/x is continuous on (0,1). The composition of continuous functions is continuous. So sin(1/x) is continouous on (0,1)

Are you required to prove that sinx itself is continuous?
 
You say "(i know it's also continuous on (0, infinite))". If a function is continuous on a set, A, it is continuous on any subset of A.
 
HallsofIvy said:
If a function is continuous on a set, A, it is continuous on any subset of A.

ANY subset of A? What if the subset has an empty interior? How can f inverse of an open subset of f(A) (in the subspace topology of R) be open in A?
 
Last edited:
What's the epsilon-delta proof for the continuity of sinx itself?
 
mathboy said:
What's the epsilon-delta proof for the continuity of sinx itself?
One can prove that |sin(x) - sin(y)| <= |x - y|.
 
mathboy said:
ANY subset of A? What if the subset has an empty interior? How can f inverse of an open subset of f(A) (in the subspace topology of R) be open in A?
The empty set and A itself are still open subsets of A.
 
  • #10
Ok, I got it. If A is given the subspace topology of R, then any continuous function restricted to A is still continuous.

But an epsilon-delta proof of this fact will not work if A is a set with an empty interior.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
i see you have all posted great replies, but can anyone tell me if my proof actually works. i want to understand the proper use of the epsilon-delta proof. the teacher will surely ask us to do such a proof. it seems okay.
 
  • #12
There's no need to use the epsilon-delta proof, and I don't think your prof expects it.
 
  • #13
I don't think so either, the exercise does not seem to encourage you to take a look at the epsilon-delta kind of proofs.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K