Please explain use of Heine in proof of simple theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Heine's theorem to prove the uniqueness of limits for functions. The original poster is confused about how the uniqueness of limits for sequences can be applied to a function, given that f(x_n) represents function values rather than a traditional sequence. Participants clarify that if a function converges to two different limits A and B, then the sequence of function values f(x_n) must also converge to both, which leads to a contradiction. The uniqueness of limits for sequences can indeed be adapted to functions, as the values f(x_n) can be treated as a sequence. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes that the convergence of f(x_n) to both limits is impossible, thus reinforcing the uniqueness of the limit of the function.
twoflower
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I don't fully understand the proof of uniqueness of limit of function. Our teacher proved it using the Heine's theorem. Here it is:

Proof:
Let \lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = A and \lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = B.

Let \left{ x_{n} \right} satisfies: \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x_{n} = a. Then


<br /> \Longrightarrow^{Heine}<br /> \begin{array}{cc}\lim f\left( x_{n} \right) = A\\\lim f\left( x_{n} \right) = B\end{array}\right<br />

Ok, I understand this, because according to Heine it's equivalent. But I don't get the next step:

<br /> \Longrightarrow^{\mbox{Uniqueness of limit of sequence}} A = B \Longrightarrow^{Heine 2} \mbox{Uniqueness of limit of function}<br />

How can I use the uniqueness of limit of sequence here, when f\left( x_{n} \right) is not a sequence, but a function?

Thank you for the explanation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If lim(x->a) f(x)= A, then f(xn) MUST also converge to A for any sequence xn converging to a. If f converged to both A and B, then the sequence f(xn) must converge to both A and B which, apparently, you have already proved is impossible.

Actually the proof of the uniqueness the limit of a sequence can be modified to give directly a proof of the uniqueness of the limit of a function.

If f converges to both A and B, take &epsilon; to be half the distance from A to B. Then show that x can't be within &epsilon of both A and B.
 
HallsofIvy said:
...If f converged to both A and B, then the sequence f(xn) must converge to both A and B which, apparently, you have already proved is impossible.

Well, that's what I don't understand. I think that f\left(x_{n}\right) is function, not sequence. Sequence goes only over integers, whereas f\left(x_{n}\right) doesn't...That's why I can't use the uniqueness of limit of sequence directly here I think...Of course there are other ways how to prove the uniqueness of limit of function, I just want to understand this one.
 
Why can't you construct the sequence:
a_{n}=f(x_{n})??
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top