MHB Is Showing One ε Enough to Prove Discontinuity?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the continuity of a function f at a rational point x_0 and whether showing a single ε value is enough to prove discontinuity. It is established that if f is continuous at x_0, for ε=1/2, there must exist a δ such that f(U) falls within (1/2, 3/2). However, this is contradicted because every neighborhood of x_0 contains irrational points that map to 0, violating the continuity condition. A participant clarifies that demonstrating a single ε value where continuity fails is sufficient to prove discontinuity. Thus, the argument concludes that the function cannot be continuous at rational points due to this contradiction.
Joe20
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
Appreciate the help needed for the attached question. Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 2.png
    2.png
    3.5 KB · Views: 139
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose that $f$ is continuous at some rational point $x_0\in\mathbb{Q}$. Then for $\varepsilon=1/2$ there exists a $\delta>0$ such that for an open interval $U=(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ we have $f(U)\subseteq(1/2,3/2)=(f(x_0)-1/2,f(x_0)+1/2)$. But this is impossible since every neighborhood of $x_0$, including $U$, contains an irrational point that is mapped to $0$ by $f$. The case of irrational $x_0$ is considered similarly.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Suppose that $f$ is continuous at some rational point $x_0\in\mathbb{Q}$. Then for $\varepsilon=1/2$ there exists a $\delta>0$ such that for an open interval $U=(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)$ we have $f(U)\subseteq(1/2,3/2)=(f(x_0)-1/2,f(x_0)+1/2)$. But this is impossible since every neighborhood of $x_0$, including $U$, contains an irrational point that is mapped to $0$ by $f$. The case of irrational $x_0$ is considered similarly.

Hi, may I ask how do you know that f(U)⊆(1/2,3/2) and how do u know ε=1/2? How do I answer to the f(x) = 1 and 0? I am confused.
 
He doesn't "know" that \epsilon= \frac{1}{2}, he gave it that value. To prove that a function is continuous at x= a you must show that \lim_{x\to a}f(x)= f(a). And to show that you must show that "given any \epsilon> 0 there exist \delta> 0 such that …". This must be true for any \epsilon.

But Evgeny Makarov was showing that this is not true. It was sufficient to show there there is some value of \epsilon for which this is not true. He showed it was not true for \epsilon= \frac{1}{2} and that is sufficient to show that the function is not continuous.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K