Misunderstanding problem solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter farleyknight
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the limit equivalence: lim_{x \to a} f(x) = lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h) as presented in Spivak's "Calculus, 3rd ed." The proof establishes that if l = lim_{x \to a} f(x), then for every ε > 0, there exists a δ > 0 such that |f(x) - l| < ε for 0 < |x - a| < δ. The confusion arises from the assumption that the limits L and M must be equal, which is clarified by recognizing that h + a is a valid substitution for x in the limit definition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with epsilon-delta definitions of limits
  • Basic knowledge of function continuity
  • Experience with proof techniques in mathematical analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Explore continuity and its implications for limits
  • Review proofs involving limits in Spivak's "Calculus, 3rd ed."
  • Investigate common misconceptions in limit proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of limit proofs and epsilon-delta arguments.

farleyknight
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Hey all,

Homework Statement



This isn't really homework, just looking through a particular book (Spivak's Calculus, 3rd ed) and trying to see if my understanding of a problem is clear or not.

Problem 9, page 107, for those of you following along at home.

Prove that:

[itex]\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h)[/itex]

Homework Equations



Now, the book gives the following answer:

Let [itex]l = \lim_{x \to a} f(x)[/itex] and define [itex]g(h) = f(a + h)[/itex]. Then for every [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there is a [itex]\delta > 0[/itex] such that, for all x, if [itex]0 < |x - a| < \delta[/itex] then [itex]|f(x) - l| < \epsilon[/itex]. Now, if [itex]0 < |h| < \delta[/itex] then [itex]0 < |(h + a) - a| < \delta[/itex] so [itex]|f(a + h) - l| < \epsilon[/itex]. This inequality can be written [itex]|g(h) - l| < \epsilon[/itex]. Thus [itex]\lim_{h \to 0} g(h) = l[/itex], which can be also written [itex]\lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h) = l[/itex]. The same sort of argument shows that if [itex]\lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h) = m[/itex], then [itex]\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = m[/itex]. So either limit exists if the other does, and in this case, they are equal.

The Attempt at a Solution



Now it appears to me that the author is making the a priori assumption that:

[itex]\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L[/itex] and [itex]\lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h) = L[/itex]

and using that in his proof to show the two are equal. But I'm doubtful this is a legitimate jump.

Let's do a different setup and I'll show you want I mean.

Given [itex]\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L[/itex] and [itex]\lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h) = M[/itex] , prove [itex]\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} f(a + h)[/itex]

[itex]0 < |x - a| < \delta[/itex] implies [itex]|f(x) - L| < \epsilon[/itex]

Now if

[itex]0 < |h| < \delta[/itex] then

[itex]0 < |(h + a) - a| < \delta[/itex] implies [itex]|f(a + h) - M| < \epsilon[/itex]

Oh wait, we can't go any further.. The two are not necessarily equal because L might not equal M.

So I'm pretty sure the book is right and I'm wrong.. so what's the error in my logic?

- Rob
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason why |f(a+h)-L|<epsilon isn't because of a separate assumption that f(a+h) has a limit. It's because you can substitute h+a for x in the first limit. h+a is one of the values of x such that |x-a|<delta.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K