F(x) = x if x is rational, 0 if x is irrational.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves the function F(x) defined as F(x) = x for rational x and F(x) = 0 for irrational x. The task is to use the δ, ε definition of limits to prove that lim(x→0)F(x)=0 and that lim(x→a)F(x) does not exist for any a≠0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the initial setup of the δ, ε definition and express confusion about how to apply it, particularly regarding the epsilon values. Some explore the implications of rational and irrational inputs on the limit as x approaches 0 and question how to demonstrate the non-existence of the limit as x approaches a non-zero value.

Discussion Status

There are various attempts to clarify the requirements for proving the limits, with some participants suggesting that assuming the limit exists could lead to contradictions. Others are exploring how to handle different cases for rational and irrational numbers in their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of determining appropriate values for ε and δ in their proofs, as well as the implications of the function's definition on the limit behavior.

Mjjellen
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



F(x) = x if x is rational, 0 if x is irrational.
Use the δ, ε definition of the limit to prove that lim(x→0)f(x)=0.
Use the δ, ε definition of the limit to prove that lim(x→a)f(x) does not exist for any a≠0.


Homework Equations



lim(x→a)f(x)=L
0<|x-a|<δ, |f(x)-L|<ε

The Attempt at a Solution



I was mostly having troubles writing my initial equation, I was stumped very early on by filling in the values for the epsilon part of the equation, if that's how one is supposed to go by this problem. If not, any other advice that can be given to me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the limit as x → 0 :
For rational numbers, f(x) = x.
What does δ need to be so that if 0 < |x - 0| < δ , then |f(x) - 0| < ε ?

For irrational numbers, any δ will work. Why?
So, use the same δ you pick for the rationals.

Do you know how to show that limx → ag(x) doesn't exist, in general? Of course using δ, ε .
 
I have the exact same exercise and i cannot prove the second part
"Use the δ, ε definition of the limit to prove that lim(x→a)f(x) does not exist for any a≠0."

I was wondering if anyone could help me with that

Thank you in advance
 
Assuming a limit did exist, would that lead to any contradictions?
 
Yes, i think that i must assume that the limit exists,lets say that it is L.
The problem is that i don't know what i have to do next.
Probably i will have to work with to different cases,one if x is rational and
one if x is irrational.Another problem is that I don't know what ε Ι have to use
in order to get to the contradiction.
 
Show that no matter what value L you pick as [itex]\lim_{x \to c} f(x)[/itex] means that you can find some [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex] but you cannot find a [itex]\delta>0[/itex] that satisfies the definition of the limit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K