Limits - Prove that xsin1/x approaches 0 near 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miike012
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit of the function \( x \sin\left(\frac{1}{x}\right) \) as \( x \) approaches 0, specifically proving that it approaches 0. Participants also explore the limit of \( x^2 \sin\left(\frac{1}{x}\right) \) near 0, referencing methods from textbooks and questioning the application of the epsilon-delta definition and the squeeze theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the squeeze theorem and the epsilon-delta definition to establish limits. There are questions about the conditions under which \( |x| < \epsilon \) and whether \( |x| \) should be less than \( \sqrt{\epsilon} \). Some participants express confusion regarding the application of these concepts in proofs.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various approaches being explored. Some participants have offered guidance on the use of delta-epsilon proofs, while others are questioning the assumptions made in the proofs. There is no explicit consensus, but multiple interpretations and methods are being examined.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of epsilon-delta proofs and the implications of the squeeze theorem. There is mention of constraints related to the definitions and properties of limits, particularly in the context of the functions being analyzed.

Miike012
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
0
limits -- Prove that xsin1/x approaches 0 near 0

Prove that xsin1/x approaches 0 near 0.

similar Proof from book
|sin1/x| ≤ 1
| xsin1/x | ≤ |x| for all x not equal to 0, so we can make |xsin1/x|< ε by requiring that |x| < ε and not equal to 0.

MY QUESTION: Prove x2sin1/x approaches 0 near 0.

According to the book, if ε>0, to ensure that |x2sin1/x |< ε we need only require that |x| < ε and not equal to 0.

shouldnt |x| be less that √ε? Hence |x2 | < ε and |x|< √ε.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Use the Pinching theorem.
[tex]-x \le x\sin \frac{1}{x} \le x[/tex]
 


sharks said:
Use the Pinching theorem.
[tex]-x \le x\sin \frac{1}{x} \le x[/tex]

Ok how does that tell me that |x2sin1/x|< ε for |x|< ε??
 


Miike012 said:
Prove that xsin1/x approaches 0 near 0.

similar Proof from book
|sin1/x| ≤ 1
| xsin1/x | ≤ |x| for all x not equal to 0, so we can make |xsin1/x|< ε by requiring that |x| < ε and not equal to 0.

MY QUESTION: Prove x2sin1/x approaches 0 near 0.

According to the book, if ε>0, to ensure that |x2sin1/x |< ε we need only require that |x| < ε and not equal to 0.

shouldnt |x| be less that √ε? Hence |x2 | < ε and |x|< √ε.

Are you supposed to use a δ - ε proof, or can you use such things as the "squeeze theorem" ?
 


SammyS said:
Are you supposed to use a δ - ε proof, or can you use such things as the "squeeze theorem" ?

delta epsilon proof
 


Miike012 said:
Prove that x^2sin1/x approaches 0 near 0.


According to the book, if ε>0, to ensure that |x2sin1/x |< ε we need only require that |x| < ε and not equal to 0.

shouldnt |x| be less that √ε? Hence |x2 | < ε and |x|< √ε.

all I am doing is quoting from the book... and I want to know how they decided that |x|<ε
 


Well, for small enough [itex]\epsilon[/itex], [itex]0<\epsilon < \sqrt{\epsilon}[/itex].

In fact, we only need [itex]0<\epsilon<1[/itex] for this to be true.

Oh and also for a more fundamental reason. In Spivak's book, (I don't know for other books) the proof that this limit is 0 using delta-epsilon comes before the proof that every positive number has a square root (which requires the least upper bound property). So the existence of such a number [itex]\sqrt{\epsilon}[/itex]. cannot be assumed.
 
Last edited:


This is a common hangup for people doing ##\epsilon-\delta## proofs for the first time.

You don't need to find the "best" ##\delta##; you just need to find one that works.
 


If [itex]\displaystyle |x| < 1\,,\ \text{ then (multiplying by }|x| \text{ gives } |x^2|<|x|\,,\text{ and } |x| < 1\, \text{ ) } |x^2|<1 \ .[/itex]

So let δ = min(1,√ε) .
 
  • #10


There is a general theorem:
If [itex]f(x) \rightarrow 0, \ x \rightarrow a[/itex], and [itex]\vert g(x) \vert \le M, \ \forall x \in U(a)[/itex], where [itex]U(a)[/itex] is some neighborhood of the point [itex]a[/itex], then:
[tex] \mathrm{\lim}_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) \, g(x) = 0[/tex]

Can you prove it?
 
  • #11


I just learned the δε definition myself and am very shaky on it. Since |x|< δ can we not turn |x2sin([itex]\frac{1}{x}[/itex])|< ε into |x|<[itex]\frac{ε}{xsin(\frac{1}{x})}[/itex]. And now we have our δ=[itex]\frac{ε}{xsin(\frac{1}{x})}[/itex] and use this in the proof.

Miike012 said:
all I am doing is quoting from the book... and I want to know how they decided that |x|<ε


Because it's part of the εδ definition that |x2sin(1/x)|<ε and it's just the nature of the function that |x| ≤ |xsin(1/x)|
 
Last edited:
  • #12


e^(i Pi)+1=0 said:
I just learned the δε definition myself and am very shaky on it. Since |x|< δ can we not turn |x2sin([itex]\frac{1}{x}[/itex])|< ε into |x|<[itex]\frac{ε}{xsin(\frac{1}{x})}[/itex]. And now we have our δ=[itex]\frac{ε}{xsin(\frac{1}{x})}[/itex] and use this in the proof.


No, this way our δ would depend on x.

The ε-δ definition tells us that "For all ε, there must exist a δ, such that for all x, ...". This means that our δ must work for all x. Your proposed δ does not work for all x.
 
  • #13


For [itex]0< \epsilon< 1[/itex], [itex]\epsilon< \sqrt{\epsilon}[/itex] so "[itex]<\epsilon[/itex]" is sufficient.
 
  • #14


micromass said:
No, this way our δ would depend on x.

The ε-δ definition tells us that "For all ε, there must exist a δ, such that for all x, ...". This means that our δ must work for all x. Your proposed δ does not work for all x.

You've got your quantifiers mixed up an have given the definition of uniform continuity.
 
  • #15


gopher_p said:
You've got your quantifiers mixed up an have given the definition of uniform continuity.

No, I didn't...

Uniform continuity would be "Forall ε>0, there is a δ>0, such that for all x,y..."
Here, I'm holding 0 fixed and I say " "Forall ε>0, there is a δ>0, such that for all x..."

OK, it might be confusing though that I did not write the definition fully.
 
  • #16


SammyS said:
If [itex]\displaystyle |x| < 1\,,\ \text{ then (multiplying by }|x| \text{ gives } |x^2|<|x|\,,\text{ and } |x| < 1\, \text{ ) } |x^2|<1 \ .[/itex]

So let δ = min(1,√ε) .
I must have had a brain cramp!

It looks like you could use either of the following for δ :
δ = √ε

δ = min(1, ε)​
 
  • #17
micromass said:
No, I didn't...

Uniform continuity would be "Forall ε>0, there is a δ>0, such that for all x,y..."
Here, I'm holding 0 fixed and I say " "Forall ε>0, there is a δ>0, such that for all x..."

OK, it might be confusing though that I did not write the definition fully.

Yes. You are correct. I misread your yada-yada. Though I probably shouldn't have given the context.

My bad.
 
  • #18


If you want to be fancy, the power series expansion of sinx is:

sinx = x - x3/6 + ...

It follows that sin(1/x) = 1/x - (1/x)3/6 + ...

and x2sin(1/x) = x - (1/x)/6 + ...

so, lim x -> ∞ x2sin(1/x) = 0
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K