Please correct my mistake in this limits exercise

Andrax
Messages
117
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


we have this function

f(x)=1 if \frac{1}{x}\in Z ( aka integer)
f(x) = 0 otherwise
Prove that limit (as x approach 0) dosen't exist (use the definition of limit - trying to prove that limit as x approchaes 0 and x approchs 0+ will not work here)<-- hint given by the exercise




Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


so what I've done here , first of all this is obviously done by contradiction but just please correctr my mistaker here
let x=1/p /p is an integer (aka 1/x is an integer) then f(x) = 1
we have limit (as x approaches 0 ) 1 = 1
now let x=/ 1/p /p s an integer then
f(x)=0
then limit as ( x approaches 0 ) 0 = 0
we haven limit as ( x approaches 0 ) 0 and 1 which is impossible then it's a contradition please correct me here i know my proof is wrong but i couldn't correct it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Andrax said:

Homework Statement


we have this function

f(x)=1 if \frac{1}{x}\in Z ( aka integer)
f(x) = 0 otherwise
Prove that limit (as x approach 0) dosen't exist (use the definition of limit - trying to prove that limit as x approchaes 0 and x approchs 0+ will not work here)<-- hint given by the exercise

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


so what I've done here , first of all this is obviously done by contradiction but just please correctr my mistaker here
let x=1/p /p is an integer (aka 1/x is an integer) then f(x) = 1
we have limit (as x approaches 0 ) 1 = 1
now let x=/ 1/p /p s an integer then
f(x)=0
then limit as ( x approaches 0 ) 0 = 0
we haven limit as ( x approaches 0 ) 0 and 1 which is impossible then it's a contradition please correct me here i know my proof is wrong but i couldn't correct it
The idea behind your proof is basically OK but you need to state it more clearly.

If ##\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}f(x)## exists, then we must have ##\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(x_n) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(y_n)## for any sequences ##(x_n)## and ##(y_n)## such that ##x_n \rightarrow 0## and ##y_n \rightarrow 0##.

So one way to prove that ##\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}f(x)## does not exist is to find two sequences ##(x_n)## and ##(y_n)## such that ##x_n \rightarrow 0## and ##y_n \rightarrow 0## but ##\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(x_n) \neq \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(y_n)##.

As I think your proof is indicating, we can choose ##x_n = 1/n##, in which case ##f(x_n) = 1## for all ##n##, so ##\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(x_n) = 1##.

Now construct a sequence ##(y_n)## that will give you the contradiction.
 
jbunniii said:
The idea behind your proof is basically OK but you need to state it more clearly.

If ##\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}f(x)## exists, then we must have ##\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(x_n) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(y_n)## for any sequences ##(x_n)## and ##(y_n)## such that ##x_n \rightarrow 0## and ##y_n \rightarrow 0##.

So one way to prove that ##\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}f(x)## does not exist is to find two sequences ##(x_n)## and ##(y_n)## such that ##x_n \rightarrow 0## and ##y_n \rightarrow 0## but ##\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(x_n) \neq \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(y_n)##.

As I think your proof is indicating, we can choose ##x_n = 1/n##, in which case ##f(x_n) = 1## for all ##n##, so ##\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}f(x_n) = 1##.

Now construct a sequence ##(y_n)## that will give you the contradiction.

thank you this is a way to prove it but i'll stick for a couple of minutes with the definition of limits i think if f(x) = 1 or 0 then limit (x->0) must be 0 or 1
if i prove that it isn't 0 and it isn't 1
i'll try to set L = 0 in the first case and look for a contradiction
 
Andrax said:
thank you this is a way to prove it but i'll stick for a couple of minutes with the definition of limits i think if f(x) = 1 or 0 then limit (x->0) must be 0 or 1
if i prove that it isn't 0 and it isn't 1
i'll try to set L = 0 in the first case and look for a contradiction
With this, you can rule out L = 0 or L = 1, but unless you prove that these are the only possibilities, that doesn't finish the job. However, if you assume that the limit exists and equals some general L, taking ##\epsilon < 1/2## should allow you to reach a contradiction.
 
jbunniii said:
With this, you can rule out L = 0 or L = 1, but unless you prove that these are the only possibilities, that doesn't finish the job. However, if you assume that the limit exists and equals some general L, taking ##\epsilon < 1/2## should allow you to reach a contradiction.

i've managed to get a contradiction by the definition i did the opposite of it and i gave epsilon , and alpha which made the contradition for both l= 0 and L = 1 ( i got it by f(x) 0> 1/2 )
thank you
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top