Epsilon Delta proof of a 2variable limit. Is my proof valid?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the limit of (x*y^3)/(x^2 + 2y^2) as (x,y) approaches (0,0) using the epsilon-delta definition. Participants explore whether the inequality |x|/sqrt(x^2 + 2y^2) can imply |x|/(x^2 + 2y^2) and discuss the implications of using polar coordinates for simplification. They suggest setting delta as a function of epsilon to establish the limit, with various proposed values for delta, including 2sqrt(epsilon) and sqrt(2epsilon). The conversation highlights the need for careful handling of inequalities and the importance of absolute values in the proof. Ultimately, multiple approaches to defining delta are considered valid, emphasizing the flexibility in epsilon-delta proofs.
AutumnWater
Messages
27
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Use the epsilon delta definition to show that lim(x,y) -> (0,0) (x*y^3)/(x^2 + 2y^2) = 0

Homework Equations


sqrt(x^2) = |x| <= sqrt(x^2+y^2) ==> |x|/sqrt(x^2+y^2) <= 1 ==> |x|/(x^2+2y^2)?

The Attempt at a Solution


This limit is true IFF for all values of epsilon > 0, there exists a delta such that:

0<sqrt(x^2+y^2)<delta ==> |(x*y^3)/(x^2+2y^2)| < epsilon

When checking my answers, I'm stuck at this step:
Can: |x|/sqrt(x^2+2y^2) <= 1 imply that |x|/(x^2+2y^2) will also be <= 1?
I'm skeptical as it seems wrong, but if this step holds, then the rest of my proof can be as follows:

(|x|/(x^2+2y^2))*|y^3| <= |y^3| = |(y^2)^(3/2)| <= (x^2 + y^2 ) ^ (3/2) < (delta)^3

thus

let delta = (epsilon)^(1/3) and we get:

sqrt(x^2+y^2)<epsilon^(1/3) ==> (x^2+y^2)^(3/2) < epsilon ==> (y^2)^(3/2) = y^3 < (x^2+y^2)^(3/2) < epsilon;

Since |x|/(x^2+2y^2) <= 1, (|x|/(x^2+2y^2)) * |y^3| < |y^3| < epsilon;

and we have f(x) < epsilon.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AutumnWater said:

Homework Statement


Use the epsilon delta definition to show that lim(x,y) -> (0,0) (x*y^3)/(x^2 + 2y^2) = 0

Homework Equations


sqrt(x^2) = |x| <= sqrt(x^2+y^2) ==> |x|/sqrt(x^2+y^2) <= 1 ==> |x|/(x^2+2y^2)?

The Attempt at a Solution


This limit is true IFF for all values of epsilon > 0, there exists a delta such that:

0<sqrt(x^2+y^2)<delta ==> |(x*y^3)/(x^2+2y^2)| < epsilon

When checking my answers, I'm stuck at this step:
Can: |x|/sqrt(x^2+2y^2) <= 1 imply that |x|/(x^2+2y^2) will also be <= 1?
I'm skeptical as it seems wrong, but if this step holds, then the rest of my proof can be as follows:

(|x|/(x^2+2y^2))*|y^3| <= |y^3| = |(y^2)^(3/2)| <= (x^2 + y^2 ) ^ (3/2) < (delta)^3

thus

let delta = (epsilon)^(1/3) and we get:

sqrt(x^2+y^2)<epsilon^(1/3) ==> (x^2+y^2)^(3/2) < epsilon ==> (y^2)^(3/2) = y^3 < (x^2+y^2)^(3/2) < epsilon;

Since |x|/(x^2+2y^2) <= 1, (|x|/(x^2+2y^2)) * |y^3| < |y^3| < epsilon;

and we have f(x) < epsilon.
Can: |x|/sqrt(x^2+2y^2) <= 1 imply that |x|/(x^2+2y^2) will also be <= 1?
No. (Take x=0.5 and y=0.1 for example)

Hint: ##\frac{1}{x²+2y²}\leq \frac{1}{2y²}##
 
thanks, I'll go review my polar coordinates chapters first :P
 
AutumnWater said:
thanks, I'll go review my polar coordinates chapters first :P
That works too. :oldsmile:
 
so we have: f(x,y) = (xy^3)/(x^2+2y^2)
since 1/(x^2+2y^2) <= 1/2y^2
f(x,y) <= (xy^3)/2y^2 where (xy^3)/2y^2 = xy/2 = p^2 sin(2theta) / 4 (let that = g(p,theta))
since sin(2theta) is between [-1, 1],
-p^2/4 <= g(p,theta) <= p^2/4
and f(x,y) is <= g(p,theta)
does that mean I should set delta = 2sqrt(epsilon) here then?

We need 0<p<delta to imply g(p,theta)< epsilon, since we know g(p,theta)< p^2/4, if we set delta = 2sqrt(epsilon), 0<p<2sqrt(epsilon) ==> (p^2)/4 < epsilon, then it works?

So in the end we have:
1) 0<sqrt(x^2+y^2)<delta where sqrt(x^2+y^2) = p, set delta = 2sqrt(epsilon)

2) |f(x)| <= g(p,theta) <= p^2/4 < epsilon

since p<2sqrt(epsilon) ==> (p^2/4) < epsilon

we have a connection between 1) and 2) here.
 
Last edited:
AutumnWater said:
so we have: f(x,y) = (xy^3)/(x^2+2y^2)
since 1/(x^2+2y^2) <= 1/2y^2
I assume you mean 1/(2y2) on the right hand side.

1/(x^2+2y^2) ≤ 1/(2y2) implies that x2 ≥ y2. Did you really mean that?

If you're going to change this to polar coordinates, Nothing is more convenient to convert than x2 + y2 .

After all, x2 + y2 = r2 .

Added in Edit:
Somehow I missed seeing the coefficient of 2 on the y2 in the denominator, so ignore this, which it seems you have. (thankfully!)

f(x,y) <= (xy^3)/2y^2 where (xy^3)/2y^2 = xy/2 = p^2 sin(2theta) / 4 (let that = g(p,theta))
since sin(2theta) is between [-1, 1],
-p^2/4 <= g(p,theta) <= p^2/4
and f(x,y) is <= g(p,theta)
does that mean I should set delta = 2sqrt(epsilon) here then?

We need 0<p<delta to imply g(p,theta)< epsilon, since we know g(p,theta)< p^2/4, if we set delta = 2sqrt(epsilon), 0<p<2sqrt(epsilon) ==> (p^2)/4 < epsilon, then it works?

So in the end we have:
1) 0<sqrt(x^2+y^2)<delta where sqrt(x^2+y^2) = p, set delta = 2sqrt(epsilon)

2) |f(x)| <= g(p,theta) <= p^2/4 < epsilon

since p<2sqrt(epsilon) ==> (p^2/4) < epsilon

we have a connection between 1) and 2) here.
 
Last edited:
SammyS said:
I assume you mean 1/(2y2) on the right hand side.

1/(x^2+2y^2) ≤ 1/(2y2) implies that x2 ≥ y2. Did you really mean that?

If you're going to change this to polar coordinates, Nothing is more convenient to convert than x2 + y2 .

After all, x2 + y2 = r2 .

yes I meant 1/(x^2+2y^2) <= 1/(2y^2) implies (xy^3)/(x^2+2y^2) <= (xy^3)/(2y^2)
 
Last edited:
AutumnWater said:
yes I meant 1/(x^2+2y^2) <= 1/(2y^2) implies (xy^3)/(x^2+2y^2) <= (xy^3)/(2y^2)

You need some absolute value signs: the inequality is reversed when xy &lt; 0.
 
Ok thanks.

Here I got 2 different deltas, would it be safe to say both are correct, only one is even more closer than the other one?
If looking at the initial equation directly:
We have:
$$|(xy^3)/(x^2+2y^2)| = [(p^2*(sin(theta))^2*sin(2theta))/2(1+(sin(theta))^2)] <= (p^2)/2 < epsilon$$
so we set delta = sqrt(2epsilon)

If looking at the equations from the perspective of $$|xy^3|/2y^2$$: then delta's $$2sqrt(epsilon)$$ according to previous post.
 
  • #10
You could make it a lot simpler by substituting ##y=z/\sqrt 2## before going polar.
 
  • #11
haruspex said:
You could make it a lot simpler by substituting ##y=z/\sqrt 2## before going polar.
would it? whilst there will be a coefficient of $$1/(2^{3/2})$$ on the numerator of the f(x) only when doing the z substitution, the equation for delta wouldn't be p=sqrt(x^2 + y^2) anymore, instead it would turn out to be sqrt(x^2 + (z^2)/2) wouldn't it?

so $$|(x^{2} + (z^{2})/2))^{1/2}| <= delta$$ needs to imply $$|((xz^{3})/(2^{3/2}) / (x^{2} + z^{2})| < epsilon $$ ?

in polar form that would amount to:

sqrt(5p^2/4) < delta needs to imply that p^2/2 < epsilon

(sorry, I will get a hang of latex codes soon)
 
Last edited:
  • #12
AutumnWater said:
would it? whilst there will be a coefficient of $$1/(2^{3/2})$$ on the numerator of the f(x) only when doing the z substitution, the equation for delta wouldn't be p=sqrt(x^2 + y^2) anymore, instead it would turn out to be sqrt(x^2 + (z^2)/2) wouldn't it?

so $$|(x^{2} + (z^{2})/2))^{1/2}| <= delta$$ needs to imply $$|((xz^{3})/(2^{3/2}) / (x^{2} + z^{2})| < epsilon $$ ?

in polar form that would amount to:

sqrt(5p^2/4) < delta needs to imply that p^2/2 < epsilon

(sorry, I will get a hang of latex codes soon)
So make delta a bit smaller for the given epsilon.
 
  • #13
haruspex said:
So make delta a bit smaller for the given epsilon.
oops, the p^2/2 < epsilon earlier didn't include the $$1/(2^{3/2})$$

so if it was $$(1/(2^{3/2})) * (p^2/2) < epsilon ==> p^2/2 < 2sqrt(2)epsilon ==> p < 2 (2^{1/4})\sqrt(epsilon)$$

and $$\sqrt(5)p/2 < delta ==> p < 2(delta)/\sqrt(5)$$

make ps equal, and I got $$\sqrt(5)(2^{1/4})\sqrt(epsilon) = delta$$ which is about 2.659 times $$\sqrt(epsilon)$$, bigger than the other two...

so far I've had: $$\sqrt(2epsilon)$$, $$2\sqrt(epsilon)$$, and now $$(2^{1/4})\sqrt(5epsilon)$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K