MHB Limits of Complex Functions .... Final Remark from Palka in Section 2.2 ....

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding limits of complex functions as presented in Bruce P. Palka's book on complex function theory. The first question addresses how the limit of the function f(x) = e^{-1/x^2} approaches 0 as x approaches 0, which is explained by noting that as x approaches 0, the exponent -1/x^2 tends to negative infinity, leading to the limit being 0. The second question involves demonstrating that for the sequence z_n defined as (2n π)^{-1/2} e^{π i / 4}, the function f(z_n) equals e^{2n π i}, which simplifies to 1 due to the properties of exponential functions. The calculations show that z_n^2 leads to a form that confirms f(z_n) approaches 1 as n increases. Overall, the discussion clarifies these complex function limits and their implications in topology.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Bruce P. Palka's book: An Introduction to Complex Function Theory ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Plane Topology ...

I need help with some aspects regarding an example in Palka's final remarks in Section 2.2 Limits of Functions ...

Palka's final remarks in Section 2.2 which include the example read as follows:View attachment 7372I have two questions regarding the above text ...Question 1

In the above text from Palka Section 2.2 we read the following:" ... ... Consider for a moment, the function $$f(x) = e^{-1/x^2}$$. We are aware from calculus that $$\text{lim}_{x \rightarrow 0} \ f(x) = \text{lim}_{x \rightarrow 0} \ e^{-1/x^2} = 0$$. ... ..."Can someone please demonstrate exactly how/why $$\text{lim}_{x \rightarrow 0} \ f(x) = \text{lim}_{x \rightarrow 0} \ e^{-1/x^2} = 0$$ ... ... ?Question 2

In the above text from Palka Section 2.2 we read the following:

" ... ... However, if we set $$z_n = (2n \pi)^{-1/2} e^{ \pi i / 4 }$$ for $$n = 1,2, \ ... $$ , we observe that $$z_n \rightarrow 0$$, whereas $$f(z_n) = e^{ 2n \pi i } = 1$$ for every $$n$$ so $$f( z_n ) \rightarrow 1$$. ... ... "I am unable to show that $$f(z_n) = e^{ 2n \pi i }$$ ... can someone please help ...Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Question 1

Can someone please demonstrate exactly how/why $$\text{lim}_{x \rightarrow 0} \ f(x) = \text{lim}_{x \rightarrow 0} \ e^{-1/x^2} = 0$$ ... ... ?
Starting from the fact that $e^t \to \infty$ as $t\to\infty$, it follows that $\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-t} = \lim_{t\to\infty}\dfrac1{e^t} = \dfrac1{\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{t}} = 0.$ If you then put $t = 1/x^2$, noticing that $t\to\infty$ as $x\to0$, it follows that $\lim_{x\to0}e^{-1/x^2} = 0.$

Peter said:
Question 2

In the above text from Palka Section 2.2 we read the following:

" ... ... However, if we set $$z_n = (2n \pi)^{-1/2} e^{ \pi i / 4 }$$ for $$n = 1,2, \ ... $$ , we observe that $$z_n \rightarrow 0$$, whereas $$f(z_n) = e^{ 2n \pi i } = 1$$ for every $$n$$ so $$f( z_n ) \rightarrow 1$$. ... ... "I am unable to show that $$f(z_n) = e^{ 2n \pi i }$$ ... can someone please help ...
If $$z_n = (2n \pi)^{-1/2} e^{ \pi i / 4 }$$ then $$z_n^2 = (2n \pi)^{-1} e^{ \pi i / 2 }$$. But $e^{ \pi i / 2 } = i$. So $z_n^2 = \dfrac i{2n\pi}$, and $\dfrac1{z_n^2} = \dfrac{2n\pi}i = -2n\pi i.$ Finally, $$f(z_n) = e^{-1/z_n^2} = e^{ 2n \pi i } = 1.$$
 
Opalg said:
Starting from the fact that $e^t \to \infty$ as $t\to\infty$, it follows that $\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-t} = \lim_{t\to\infty}\dfrac1{e^t} = \dfrac1{\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{t}} = 0.$ If you then put $t = 1/x^2$, noticing that $t\to\infty$ as $x\to0$, it follows that $\lim_{x\to0}e^{-1/x^2} = 0.$If $$z_n = (2n \pi)^{-1/2} e^{ \pi i / 4 }$$ then $$z_n^2 = (2n \pi)^{-1} e^{ \pi i / 2 }$$. But $e^{ \pi i / 2 } = i$. So $z_n^2 = \dfrac i{2n\pi}$, and $\dfrac1{z_n^2} = \dfrac{2n\pi}i = -2n\pi i.$ Finally, $$f(z_n) = e^{-1/z_n^2} = e^{ 2n \pi i } = 1.$$
Thanks for the help, Opalg ...

Peter
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K