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

In summary: Sorry I'm not getting what you mean, make delta smaller means setting delta = sqrt(epsilon/2) right? because sqrt(5p^2/4) < sqrt(epsilon/2) ==> p^2/2 < epsilonIn summary, the problem asks to use the epsilon delta definition to prove that the limit of (x*y^3)/(x^2 + 2y^2) as (x,y) approaches (0,0) is equal to 0. To do this, we use the inequalities sqrt(x^2) = |x| <= sqrt(x^2+y^2) and |x|/sqrt(x^2+y^2) <= 1 to show that the limit is true
  • #1
AutumnWater
27
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
  • #2
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}##
 
  • #3
thanks, I'll go review my polar coordinates chapters first :P
 
  • #4
AutumnWater said:
thanks, I'll go review my polar coordinates chapters first :P
That works too. :oldsmile:
 
  • #5
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:
  • #6
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:
  • #7
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:
  • #8
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 [itex]xy < 0[/itex].
 
  • #9
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 $$(2^{1/4})\sqrt(5epsilon)$$
 

1. What is an Epsilon Delta proof?

An Epsilon Delta proof is a mathematical method used to rigorously prove the existence of a limit for a function of two variables. It involves choosing a small value (epsilon) and showing that for any input value (delta), the output value of the function is within epsilon of the limit value.

2. Why is an Epsilon Delta proof necessary?

An Epsilon Delta proof is necessary to prove the existence of a limit in a more precise and rigorous way than simply showing that the limit value is approached as the input value gets closer to a certain number. It also allows for the calculation of a specific value for delta, providing more information about the limit.

3. How do you construct an Epsilon Delta proof?

To construct an Epsilon Delta proof, you start by defining epsilon and delta as small positive numbers. Then, you manipulate the function using algebraic and calculus techniques to show that for any delta, the output value of the function will always be within epsilon of the limit value. This involves using inequalities and the properties of limits.

4. What are common mistakes to avoid in an Epsilon Delta proof?

Common mistakes to avoid in an Epsilon Delta proof include confusing the roles of epsilon and delta, not using proper mathematical notation, and making assumptions instead of following the logical steps of the proof. It is also important to carefully justify each step and to check the validity of the proof by testing different values of epsilon and delta.

5. Is my Epsilon Delta proof valid?

To determine if your Epsilon Delta proof is valid, you should check that your proof follows the logical steps and uses proper mathematical notation. You should also check if your proof is general enough to be applied to any input value and if it correctly addresses the definition of a limit. It is always helpful to have someone else review your proof to catch any mistakes or inconsistencies.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
853
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
371
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
27
Views
740
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
877
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
547
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
249
Back
Top