MHB How to Prove Continuity Using the Epsilon-Delta Definition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreenGoblin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity Proof
Click For Summary
To prove continuity at x=1 using the epsilon-delta definition, one must demonstrate that for the functions \(x^2 - x + 1\) and \(\sqrt{x}\), the limit as \(x\) approaches 1 equals the function's value at that point. For \(x^2 - x + 1\), it is shown that if \(|x - 1| < \delta\), then \(|(x^2 - x + 1) - 1| < \epsilon\) can be satisfied by choosing \(\delta\) appropriately. For \(\sqrt{x}\), a similar approach is taken, leading to the conclusion that \(|\sqrt{x} - 1| < \epsilon\) can also be achieved with a suitable \(\delta\). The discussion emphasizes the importance of manipulating inequalities and utilizing algebraic techniques to express \(\delta\) in terms of \(\epsilon\). Overall, both functions are proven to be continuous at x=1 through careful application of the epsilon-delta definition.
GreenGoblin
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Show that the following are continuous at x=1 using the epsilon-delta definition:

$x^{2} - x + 1$

$\sqrt (x)$

I know the definitions but I don't really know quite what to do with them. After the simple rearranging I'm just at a bit of a dead end; any pointers?

Gracias,
GreenGoblin
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
GreenGoblin said:
Show that the following are continuous at x=1 using the epsilon-delta definition:

$x^{2} - x + 1$

$\sqrt (x)$

I know the definitions but I don't really know quite what to do with them. After the simple rearranging I'm just at a bit of a dead end; any pointers?

Gracias,
GreenGoblin

For a function to be continuous at a point, a limit needs to exist at that point.

By definition, if $\displaystyle 0 < |x - c| < \delta \implies \left|f(x) - L\right| < \epsilon$, then $\displaystyle \lim_{x \to c}f(x) = L$

So for the first one, to show that $\displaystyle \lim_{x \to 1}\left(x^2 - x + 1\right) = 1$, we need to show that $\displaystyle 0 < |x - 1| < \delta \implies \left|\left(x^2 - x + 1\right) - 1\right| < \epsilon$.

Trying to solve $\left|\left(x^2 - x + 1\right) - 1\right| < \epsilon $ for $\displaystyle |x - 1|$ gives us...

\[ \displaystyle \begin{align*} \left|x^2 - x\right| &< \epsilon \\ \left|x\left(x - 1\right)\right| &< \epsilon \\ |x||x - 1| &< \epsilon \end{align*} \]

Now define $\displaystyle M$ so that $\displaystyle |x| < M$ and then we have

\[ \displaystyle \begin{align*} M|x - 1| &< \epsilon \\ |x - 1| &< \frac{\epsilon}{M} \end{align*} \]

Suppose that we make $\displaystyle |x - 1| < \frac{1}{2}$, in other words, ensuring that the distance from x and 1 is never any more than 1/2 a unit (letting $\displaystyle \delta = \frac{1}{2}$, which we can do because we are going to close in on x = 1 by making that distance small anyway), and we find...

\[ \displaystyle \begin{align*} |x - 1| &< \frac{1}{2} \\ -\frac{1}{2} < x - 1 &< \frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} < x &< \frac{3}{2} \end{align*} \]

and therefore we can let $\displaystyle M = \frac{3}{2}$, so

\[ \displaystyle \begin{align*} |x - 1| &< \frac{\epsilon}{\frac{3}{2}} \\ |x - 1| &< \frac{2}{3}\epsilon \end{align*} \]

Therefore, we can define $\displaystyle \delta = \min\left\{ \frac{1}{2}, \frac{2}{3}\epsilon \right\}$ and reverse each step, and you will have your proof :)
 
GreenGoblin said:
Show that the following are continuous at x=1 using the epsilon-delta definition:

$x^{2} - x + 1$

$\sqrt (x)$

I know the definitions but I don't really know quite what to do with them. After the simple rearranging I'm just at a bit of a dead end; any pointers?

Gracias,
GreenGoblin

As for the second, we would need to show that $ \displaystyle \begin{align*} 0 < |x - 1| < \delta \implies \left| \sqrt{x} - 1 \right| < \epsilon \end{align*}$.

Solving the second inequality for the first gives us...

$ \displaystyle \begin{align*} \left| \sqrt{x} - 1 \right| &< \epsilon \\ \sqrt{x} - 1 &< \epsilon ^2 \\ \sqrt{x} &< 1 + \epsilon ^2 \\ x &< \left( 1 + \epsilon ^2 \right)^2 \\ x &< 1 + 2\epsilon ^2 + \epsilon ^4 \\ x - 1 &< 2\epsilon ^2 + \epsilon ^4 \\ |x - 1 | &< 2\epsilon ^2 + \epsilon ^4 \textrm{ which we can do because this is a nonnegative quantity} \end{align*}$

So if we let $ \displaystyle \begin{align*} \delta = 2 \epsilon ^2 + \epsilon ^4 \end{align*}$ and reverse the process, we will have our proof :)
 
a general word on how these types of proofs go:

you assume that $\epsilon$ is given before-hand. it might be arbitrarily small, though, so you're going to need to a pretty small $\delta$ to make it work. how small?

if you can express $\delta$ in terms of $\epsilon$ that's OK.

but normally, you have something like $|x - a| < \delta$ as the condition $x$ must satisfy to get $|f(x) - f(a)| < \epsilon$.

so when you start with:

$|f(x) - f(a)| < \epsilon$

you want to re-arrange that (using every/any algebraic trick you can think of) to

$|x - a|\text{..something...} = \text{...expression involving } \epsilon$

some tips:

you can always require that $|x - a| < M$ and take the smaller of your formula involving $\epsilon$ and M to be $\delta$...often this makes some "mess" go away.

the triangle inequality is useful for splitting up sums inside an absolute value sign.

you can always factor products outside the absolute value sign $|ab| = |a|\cdot |b|$.

it's a good idea to have a mental picture of where "a" is: for example, if a > 0, then by choosing M small enough (as above in tip #1), sometimes we can "lose the absolute value signs", which gives us a bit more freedom with the algebra.

the best possible situation to have is finagling $|f(x) - f(a)| < \epsilon$ into something like:

$|x - a|\cdot|K| < g(\epsilon)$ where the expression $g$ does NOT have $x$ in it (important!). $K$ might be a very ugly-looking formula involving $a$, but that doesn't matter, as long as it is either:

1) constant, or
2) bounded by a positive constant

situation (2) will occur more often. that is where choosing a good $M$ will come in handy.
 
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K