MHB Limits of functions .... D&K Lemma 1.3.3 .... another question ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Limits
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof of Lemma 1.3.3 from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by Duistermaat and Kolk, specifically regarding the relationship between limits of functions and sequences. The key point is that if the limit of a function as x approaches a is b, then for any sequence converging to a, the limit of the function evaluated at that sequence also converges to b. The rigorous proof involves the definitions of limits for functions and sequences, demonstrating that the conditions for both are compatible. The explanation clarifies how the definitions lead to the conclusion that the limit of the function at the sequence's terms approaches b. This understanding is essential for grasping the nuances of continuity and limits in multidimensional analysis.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 1: Continuity ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Lemma 1.3.3 ...

Duistermaat and Kolk"s proof of Lemma 1.3.3. reads as follows:View attachment 7681In the above proof we read:

" ... ... The necessity is obvious ... ... "

Presumably this means that if $$\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = b $$ then for every sequence $$(x_k)_{ k \in \mathbb{N} }$$ with $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty } x_k = a$$ we have $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty } f( x_k ) = b$$ ... ...Although D&K reckon that it is obvious I cannot see how to (rigorously) prove the above statement ...

Can someone please demonstrate a rigorous proof ...
Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Your interpretation is correct (I just answered that in you previous thread before I read this one).

The point is that limits are not defined in exactly the same way for functions and sequences.

$\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=b$ means that for any $\varepsilon>0$ we can find $\delta>0$ such that $|x-a|<\delta\Rightarrow|f(x)-b|<\varepsilon$.

$\lim_{k\to\infty}x_k=a$ means that, for every $\delta>0$, there exists a $k_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $k>k_0\Rightarrow|x_k-a|<\delta$.

Now, for $k>k_0$, we have $|x_k-a|<\delta$, and, because of the hypothesis, $|f(x_k)-b|<\varepsilon$; this is precisely what $\lim_{k\to\infty} f(x_k) = b$ means.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K