Epsilon delta limits if/then language

In summary: We should say, explicitly and plainly, that the intuitive notion of continuity is not what the mathematician has in mind when he talks about continuity."The article goes on to say:"In fact, the intuitive notion of continuity is not what the mathematician has in mind when he talks about continuity. [...] We should say, explicitly and plainly, that the intuitive notion of continuity is not what the mathematician has in mind when he talks about continuity."This concludes the summary.
  • #1
KyleTS
4
1
< Mentor Note -- thread moved to HH from the technical math forums, so no HH Template is shown >

This is from the question list at the UC Davis Website epsilon delta exercise list.

In the exercise list we have:

Prove that
img10.gif


Which concludes with:

Thus, if
img20.gif
, it follows that [PLAIN]https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/CalcOneDIRECTORY/preclimsoldirectory/img13.gif. This completes the proof.

My curiosity is here: This concludes with iff-then rhetoric. IFF ,
img20.gif
THEN [PLAIN]https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/CalcOneDIRECTORY/preclimsoldirectory/img13.gif. Which is true here as was proven. However, I don't see anything which explicitly demonstrates that for all real ε>0 with ε/3, there is an x in the domain of f(x), such that [PLAIN]https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~kouba/CalcOneDIRECTORY/preclimsoldirectory/img20.gif. This seems intuitively obvious, and likely easy to demonstrate in this case, however if the δ = (function of ε) is sufficiently complex, it seems as though verifying 0 < |x-10| < δ may require another epsilon-delta proof itself. That is to say, the proof here does show that IFF, THEN, however I don't see anything which demonstrates the IFF is actually true.

Have I missed something here? Thanks in advance, everyone!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not sure I understand what's confusing you. If ##\delta## was very complex, you might have to justify that ##\delta > 0##, but otherwise ##f## must be defined on an open interval containing the limit point (although not necessarily defined at the limit point itself). So, whatever ##\delta > 0## you have there is a set of relevant ##x's##.

I was going to say that the "iff" argument is slightly spurious, since you won't always have iff. I would tend to use if. In fact, he runs into trouble on solution 4, as iff is no longer valid. iff will only be valid on linear functions or functions which are 1-1 as far as the limit point is concerned. If that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Okay, now bear with me. Insofar as I understand it, in order to say f is continuously defined on an interval we must establish lim x=>x1 f(x) = f(x1) for all x in the interval. However that means, in this example, 0 < |x-10| < ε/3 is true for all real ε>0 because f(x) is continuous over the interval containing the limit point, however continuity is defined in terms of limits. Hence in order to show f(x) is continuous over the interval containing the limit point, we must use another limit -- but then that limit proof implicitly includes limits in its definitions.

That is, the concluding iff (if?) - δ inequality is established using continuity over the interval, but continuity is defined in terms of limits, hence our limit definition appears to be defined in terms of itself, or recursively. That is when you say "f must be defined on an open interval containing the limit point" in order to prove that we have to use another limit (that is, to show it satisfies the definition of limits and continuity.)
 
Last edited:
  • #4
KyleTS said:
Okay, now bear with me. Insofar as I understand it, in order to say f is continuously defined on an interval we must establish lim x=>x1 f(x) = f(x1) for all x in the interval. However that means, in this example, 0 < |x-10| < ε/3 is true for all real ε>0 because f(x) is continuous over the interval containing the limit point, however continuity is defined in terms of limits. Hence in order to show f(x) is continuous over the interval containing the limit point, we must use another limit -- but then that limit proof implicitly includes limits in its definitions.

That is, the concluding iff (if?) - δ inequality is established using continuity over the interval, but continuity is defined in terms of limits, hence our limit definition appears to be defined in terms of itself, or recursively. That is when you say "f must be defined on an open interval containing the limit point" in order to prove that we have to use another limit (that is, to show it satisfies the definition of limits and continuity.)

No, I don't understand your argument at all, I'm afraid. The continuity or otherwise of ##f## is not used anywhere in the definition of the limit: only that ##f## be defined in a neighbourhood of the limit point.
 
  • #5
Thank you, I think I'm starting to have the perspective shift I needed.

I came across an article that somewhat touched on what's confusing me.

"Perhaps our students would have less trouble trying to understand the Cauchy-Weierstrass definition if we told them in advance that it was not a formalization of their intuitive conception -- that the mathematician's formal notion of a continuous function is in fact something quite different from the intuitive picture. Indeed, that might help. But if we are getting into the business of open disclosure, we had better go the whole way and point out that the new definition does not explicitly capture continuity at all. That famous -- indeed, infamous -- epsilon-delta statement that causes everyone so much trouble does not eliminate (all) the vagueness inherent in the intuitive notion of continuity. Indeed, it doesn't address continuity at all. Rather, it simply formalizes the notion of "correspondingly" in the relation "correspondingly close." In fact, the Cauchy-Weierstrass definition only manages to provide a definition of continuity of a function by assuming continuity of the real line! "

http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~nunez/web/ESM.PDF
I appreciate your help.
 
  • #6
KyleTS said:
However, I don't see anything which explicitly demonstrates that for all real ε>0 with ε/3, there is an x in the domain of f(x), such that
img20.gif
. This seems intuitively obvious, and likely easy to demonstrate in this case, however if the δ = (function of ε) is sufficiently complex, it seems as though verifying 0 < |x-10| < δ may require another epsilon-delta proof itself. That is to say, the proof here does show that IFF, THEN, however I don't see anything which demonstrates the IFF is actually true.

Have I missed something here? Thanks in advance, everyone!
The definition of "limit" tells us that what it means for a function ##f## to have a limit at ##a##, only if ##a## is a limit point of the domain of ##f##. The definition of "limit point" says that ##a## is a limit point of a set ##E## if for all ##\delta>0##, there's an ##x\in E-\{a\}## such that ##|x-a|<\delta##. (Note that ##x\in E-\{a\}## implies ##x\neq a##, which implies ##0<|x-a|##). The requirement that ##a## must be a limit point of the domain of ##f##, is part of the definition of "limit" specifically to deal with the issue that concerns you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes KyleTS
  • #7
KyleTS said:
"Perhaps our students would have less trouble trying to understand the Cauchy-Weierstrass definition if we told them in advance that it was not a formalization of their intuitive conception -- that the mathematician's formal notion of a continuous function is in fact something quite different from the intuitive picture. Indeed, that might help. But if we are getting into the business of open disclosure, we had better go the whole way and point out that the new definition does not explicitly capture continuity at all. That famous -- indeed, infamous -- epsilon-delta statement that causes everyone so much trouble does not eliminate (all) the vagueness inherent in the intuitive notion of continuity. Indeed, it doesn't address continuity at all. Rather, it simply formalizes the notion of "correspondingly" in the relation "correspondingly close." In fact, the Cauchy-Weierstrass definition only manages to provide a definition of continuity of a function by assuming continuity of the real line! "
I find some of these comments pretty odd, in particular the claim that the definition of "continuous" doesn't address continuity at all. It defines what we mean by "continuous", so of course it does.

But there is a funny thing about these definitions. Mathematicians obviously had a pretty good idea what functions they wanted to call "continuous" before the formal definition was invented. So the formal definition is what it is because it ensures that the "right" functions end up being called continuous. Because of this, I would say that a proof of the fact that the f defined by f(x)=3 for all x is continuous isn't really saying anything about f. What the proof tells us is just that the definition that those mathematicians chose for us isn't completely stupid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jasonRF
  • #8
Fredrik said:
The definition of "limit" tells us that what it means for a function ##f## to have a limit at ##a##, only if ##a## is a limit point of the domain of ##f##. The definition of "limit point" says that ##a## is a limit point of a set ##E## if for all ##\delta>0##, there's an ##x\in E-\{a\}## such that ##|x-a|<\delta##. (Note that ##x\in E-\{a\}## implies ##x\neq a##, which implies ##0<|x-a|##). The requirement that ##a## must be a limit point of the domain of ##f##, is part of the definition of "limit" specifically to deal with the issue that concerns you.
I want to give you a giant hug right now.

This made my week.
 
  • Like
Likes Fredrik

FAQ: Epsilon delta limits if/then language

1. What is the concept of epsilon delta limits?

The concept of epsilon delta limits is an important part of calculus and deals with the behavior of a function as the input variable approaches a specific value. It involves using two values, epsilon (ε) and delta (δ), to define the limit of a function.

2. How do you determine the value of epsilon and delta in epsilon delta limits?

The values of epsilon and delta are determined by manipulating the input and output of the function. Epsilon represents the maximum distance between the output and the limit, while delta represents the maximum distance between the input and the limit. These values are then used to determine the behavior of the function as the input approaches the limit.

3. What is the significance of if/then language in epsilon delta limits?

If/then language is used in epsilon delta limits to express the relationship between the values of epsilon and delta. It states that for any given value of epsilon, there exists a corresponding value of delta that satisfies the limit definition. This is important because it allows us to prove that a function has a specific limit at a given point.

4. Can epsilon delta limits be used to evaluate all types of functions?

Yes, epsilon delta limits can be used to evaluate all types of functions, including polynomial, rational, trigonometric, and exponential functions. It is a general method for determining the limit of a function at a specific point, regardless of the complexity of the function.

5. How are epsilon delta limits related to the concept of continuity?

Epsilon delta limits and continuity are closely related. A function is said to be continuous at a point if its limit at that point exists and is equal to the function's value at that point. Epsilon delta limits are used to prove the continuity of a function by showing that for any given value of epsilon, there exists a corresponding value of delta that satisfies the limit definition.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top