Deleted neighborhoods, missing something about working with inequalities

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the concept of deleted neighborhoods in calculus, specifically in relation to limits and inequalities. The user successfully solved the exercise involving the function f(x) = 5 - 3x, identifying the limit L as -1 and the neighborhood condition as 0 < |x - 2| < e/3. However, they struggled with the exercise involving f(x) = 4/x, where the expected answer is 0 < |x - 2| < 2e/(2 + e). The user highlighted the importance of understanding that multiple neighborhoods can satisfy the limit conditions, emphasizing that rough estimations are often acceptable in these problems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Knowledge of inequalities and absolute values
  • Familiarity with functions and their behavior near specific points
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of limits and deleted neighborhoods in calculus
  • Learn about the epsilon-delta definition of limits
  • Practice solving inequalities involving rational functions
  • Explore various methods for estimating bounds in calculus problems
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, particularly those focusing on limits and inequalities, as well as educators looking for examples of problem-solving strategies in this area.

eraserhd
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This is from a calculus textbook (self-study), but my problem is not with the calculus material itself. I feel I'm missing something (obvious!) from algebra. In any case:

The problem statement

Find an appropriate number L (a limit), and a deleted neighborhood N of a, such that a given e > 0,

L - e < f(x) < L + e when x is in N.

Exercise I can solve

I can solve most of the exercises, but I can't figure out some of them. Here's one I can solve:

1. f(x) = 5 - 3x, a = 2

The answer in the back of the book, which is my answer, is:

L = -1, 0 < | x - 2 | < e/3

My work is, L = 5 - 3*2 = 5 - 6 = -1
L - e < 5 - 3x < L + e
-1 - e < 5 - 3x < -1 + e
-6 - e < -3x < -6 + e
(-6 - e)/-3 > x > (-6 + e)/-3
2 + e/3 > x > 2 - e/3
e/3 > x - 2 > -e/3
0 < | x - 2 | < e/3 (to delete x=2)

Exercise I can't solve

(or at least can't get the answer in the back of the book):

3. f(x) = 4/x, a = 2

The answer in the back of the book is:

0 < | x - 2 | < 2e/(2 + e)

Here's how far I get:

L = 4/2 = 2
2 - e < 4/x < 2 + e
-e < 4/x - 2 < e
-e/4 < x - 1/2 < e/4

Now, here is where I'm missing something. I can either delete 1/2 (instead of 2),

0 < | x - 1/2 | < e/4

or, if I subtract 3/2 instead,

-e/4 - 3/2 < x - 2 < e/4 - 3/2

I can't unify the leftmost and rightmost terms because they don't have the same absolute value.

Trying really hard to get the book's answer, working from one of the above equations, I can multiply by 8/(2+e):

-e/4 < x - 1/2 < e/4
(8/(2+e)) * (-e/4) < (8/(2+e)) * (x - 1/2) < (8/(2+e))*(e/4)
-2e/(2+e) < (8x-4)/(2+e) < 2e/(2+e)

So now I'm stuck the other way because I can't reduce (8x-4)/(2+e) to (x-2).

There's more problems that seem to use the same kind of manipulation that I'm failing to find.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason your answers won't match up to the back of the book to often (and the reason why the question asks for "a" neighborhood rather than "the" ) is because these problems are about rough estimations, and just finding sufficient bounds to satisfy our requirements, and not necessarily the optimal bounds.

For example, If I asked what deleted neighborhood around x=4 will ensure 4-1 < [f(x) = x] < 4+1, whilst the optimal and most precise solution would be [itex]0<|x-4|< 1[/itex], [itex]0< |x-4| < 1/2[/itex] would suffice as well, or any other stricter inequality.

Also, your answers don't necessarily have to be pretty. For example, if we start with [tex]2-\epsilon < 4/x < 2+\epsilon[/tex], invert, multiply by 4 and subtract 2 from all, we get [tex]\frac{-2\epsilon}{2+\epsilon} < x-2 < \frac{2\epsilon}{2-\epsilon}[/tex].

Whilst that is "optimal", the result we want to imply (that [tex]|4/x -2 |<\epsilon[/tex]) still holds if we make the bounds tighter and use [tex]0 < |x-2| < \min \left( \left|\frac{-2\epsilon}{2+\epsilon} \right|, \left|\frac{2\epsilon}{2-\epsilon} \right| \right)[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K