1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Delta-Epsilon Proofs

  1. Jul 16, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Suppose the functions f and g have the following property: for all E > 0 and all x,

    if 0 < |x - 2| < sin((E^2)/9) + E, then |f(x) - 2| < E,
    if 0 < |x - 2| < E^2, then |g(x) - 4| < E.

    For each E > 0, find a d > 0 such that, for all x,

    i) if 0 < |x - 2| < d, then |f(x) + g(x) - 6| < E.


    2. Relevant equations

    N/A, I think.

    3. The attempt at a solution

    Well, what I did was look at |f(x) + g(x) - 6| < E. Since I was given |f(x) - 2| < E and |g(x) - 4| < E, the best strategy seemed to be to change d so that it would produce values that would be, for each expression involving f(x) and g(x) would be less than E/2. However, since I don't actually know what f(x) and g(x) are, I'm at a loss as to how to do that.

    Spivak's solution (since this problem comes from there, ch. 5 #6), says the same thing ("we need...< E/2") but then says that this means I need:

    0 < |x - 2| < min(sin(E^2/36)^2 + E/2, E^2/4) = d

    ...the logic of which escapes me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 17, 2010 #2

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    You have d as a function of E for both f(x) and g(x). If you replace E by E/2 everywhere, wouldn't you get what you need?

    Then, for the final step that Spivak uses, remember that the value of d you get for f(x) will only guarantee that |f(x)-2| < E/2, and the value of d for g(x) will only guarantee that |g(x) -2| < E/2, so to ensure both are < E/2, you have the pick the smaller of the two d's.
     
  4. Jul 17, 2010 #3
    Thanks for the response.

    My problem with this is I don't see how replacing E with E/2 (in delta) replaces E with E/2 for...E. In other words, I don't see why bringing x even closer to a necessarily makes E...wait. I think I see what you're saying.

    My mistake, I believe, was that I was imagining E as some fixed value, and E/2 as some number that would be closer to l. I think I see why this would not be the case...thanks!
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook