- #1

- 182

- 0

Edit: Sorry i seem to have lost my attachment! I will upload it again tomorrow when i get to a scanner...

Disclaimer: I have no experience with proofs so go easy on me

____________________________________________________________________

I don't understand what they are doing on example number 4 of the attached page. It makes sense until they say, "

Also I don't the part under

Lastly, I have trouble understanding how all their steps even end up proving anything? I think the goal was to prove that a δ>0 exists such that if 0<|x-3|<δ is true then it will guarantee the truth of |x^2 -9|<ε for all ε>0. But I am extremely confused about how their steps prove that...

Any clarification will be greatly appreciated!

nickadams

Disclaimer: I have no experience with proofs so go easy on me

____________________________________________________________________

I don't understand what they are doing on example number 4 of the attached page. It makes sense until they say, "

*it is reasonable to assume that x is within a distance 1 from 3*.." Why not a distance .1, or .5, or .001? How were they able to come up with the arbitrary (to me) number "1" and say that is the distance x is from 3? And how did they know this would work for the purposes of their proof?Also I don't the part under

*showing that this works*where they seem to use both conditions |x-3|<1 and |x-3|<ε/7 even though they said earlier they would only use the smaller of the two restrictions... Because if they use both restrictions, isn't that restricting the value of ε to be <7, because if ε was greater than 7 then both restrictions could not be satisfied?Lastly, I have trouble understanding how all their steps even end up proving anything? I think the goal was to prove that a δ>0 exists such that if 0<|x-3|<δ is true then it will guarantee the truth of |x^2 -9|<ε for all ε>0. But I am extremely confused about how their steps prove that...

Any clarification will be greatly appreciated!

nickadams

Last edited: