How to Prove the Sign-Preserving Property for a Continuous Function?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodheavens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Property
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the sign-preserving property for continuous functions, specifically focusing on the implications of continuity at a point where the function's value is either positive or negative.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of continuity and its application to proving that a continuous function maintains its sign in a neighborhood around a point. There are discussions about using the \(\epsilon\)-\(\delta\) definition and how to select appropriate values for \(\epsilon\) based on the function's value at the point of interest.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes various interpretations of the problem and attempts to clarify the proof structure. Some participants provide guidance on how to approach the proof, while others express uncertainty about specific steps and the implications of their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of specific intervals and conditions under which the function is continuous, as well as the importance of correctly identifying the values of \(\epsilon\) and \(\delta\) in the proof process. Some participants note that the problem has evolved slightly, affecting the assumptions made in the proof.

goodheavens
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
how do you prove the sign-preserving property?

it says here that.

If f is continuous at a, and f(a) < 0, then there is an open interval I containing a such that f(x) < 0 for every x in I.

For a proof, simply take the open interval (2f(a),0) for the challenge interval "J" in the definition of continuity.

i don't get it :(

:sorry my previous post was a mistake :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Please show us your work.

The idea of the proof is to use the fact that if f is continuous at c and f(c)>0 then there exist a neighbourhood of c such that f(x) >0 .

That neighbourhood is what you have to find.

Try using the definition of continuity.
 
i saw a similar problem to this one and I am not sure if this works

using the \epsilon - \delta definition we have

l x-c l < \delta \Rightarrow l f(x) - f(c) l < \epsilon

then they used \epsilon = f(c)/2

lf(x)-f(c)l < f(c)/2

-f(c)/2<f(x)-f(c)< f(c)/2

f(c)/2 < f(x) < 3f(c)/2

f(x) > f(c) > 0 .

but i don't know how \epsilon = f(c)/2
 
Last edited:
I have restored your second post because it is exactly what you want.

The whole idea of "continuity" is that "if x is close to a, then f(x) is close to f(a)." In particular, if f(c) is positive, and f(x) is close to f(c), then f(x) must be positive also.

Why f(c)/2? If f(c)> 0 then f(c)/2> 0 also so every number between f(c) and f(c)/2 is positive. Find \delta&gt; 0 so that if |x- c|&lt; \delta (that is, so that c- \delta&lt; x&lt; c+ \delta, then |f(x)- f(c)|&lt; f(c)/2. That is the same as saying that -f(c)/2&lt; f(x)- f(c)&lt; f(c)/2 and, adding f(c) to each part, f(c)/2&lt; f(x)&lt; 3f(c)/2. Since f(c)/2 is positive, so is f(x). In other words, f(x) is positive for all x in the interval c- \delta to c+ \delta.
 
thank you sir
 
i forgot to mention that the interval was (a,b)
 
Your interval involves c and delta. (a, b) is simply the delta neighbourhood of c.
 
You cannot determine the interval in advance. Once you have found a "\delta" for whatever \epsilon you choose (as long as f(c)- \epsilon&gt; 0), a= c- \delta and b= c+ \delta
 
the interval (a,b) was actually one of the given data.
thank you
 
  • #10
goodheavens said:
the interval (a,b) was actually one of the given data.
thank you
Well you changed the question! :-P
In the new question b does not exist.

The new question is a minor variation of the previous question. The only different is that c is now a and f(c) <0. This is okay since c was assumped to be abitrary.

The same prove you presented will work but your \epsilon = \frac{|f(a)|}{2}.
 
  • #11
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
Well you changed the question! :-P
In the new question b does not exist.

The new question is a minor variation of the previous question. The only different is that c is now a and f(c) <0. This is okay since c was assumped to be abitrary.

The same prove you presented will work but your \epsilon = \frac{|f(a)|}{2}.

yeah cause its the same as in this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=460116 that would be double posting :)

so this is the final proof that i made for the previous question.

Let \epsilon > 0
l x-c l < \delta \Rightarrow l f(x) - f(c) l < \epsilon

Since f(c) > 0. then \frac{f(c)}{2} > 0 . use \epsilon = \frac{f(c)}{2}

l x-c l < \delta \Rightarrow l f(x) - f(c) l < \frac{f(c)}{2}

c - \delta < x < c + \delta \Rightarrow \frac{-f(c)}{2} < f(x) - f(c) < \frac{f(c)}{2}

\Rightarrow \frac{f(c)}{2} < f(x) < \frac{3f(c)}{2}

\Rightarrow f(x) > \frac{f(c)}{2} > 0

Thus, f(c) > 0

if i made a mistake please tell me . thank you
 
  • #12
This is correct.
 
  • #13
goodheavens said:
yeah cause its the same as in this https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=460116 that would be double posting :)

so this is the final proof that i made for the previous question.

Let \epsilon > 0
l x-c l < \delta \Rightarrow l f(x) - f(c) l < \epsilon

Since f(c) > 0. then \frac{f(c)}{2} > 0 . use \epsilon = \frac{f(c)}{2}

l x-c l < \delta \Rightarrow l f(x) - f(c) l < \frac{f(c)}{2}

c - \delta < x < c + \delta \Rightarrow \frac{-f(c)}{2} < f(x) - f(c) < \frac{f(c)}{2}

\Rightarrow \frac{f(c)}{2} < f(x) < \frac{3f(c)}{2}

\Rightarrow f(x) > \frac{f(c)}{2} > 0

Thus, f(c) > 0

if i made a mistake please tell me . thank you

Weren't you trying to prove that f(x) is greater than 0, using the fact that f(c) is greater than 0? It seems that your final statement should be "Thus, f(x)>0".
 
  • #14
Char. Limit said:
Weren't you trying to prove that f(x) is greater than 0, using the fact that f(c) is greater than 0? It seems that your final statement should be "Thus, f(x)>0".

oh yeah. haha thank you :smile::
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K