Precise Def'n of Limit Proving the Sum Rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saladsamurai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Sum
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a proof related to limits in calculus, specifically the sum rule for limits. Participants are examining the reasoning behind the choice of using ε/2 in the proof process.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why ε/2 is used in the proof, questioning its necessity and relevance to the conditions given. Other participants discuss the arbitrary nature of this choice and its implications for the proof's structure.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the reasoning behind the choice of ε/2, with some suggesting it is a strategic decision to facilitate the proof. There is an acknowledgment that this choice is not strictly dictated by the conditions of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the definitions and properties of limits, and how specific choices in proofs can affect the clarity and rigor of mathematical arguments. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding these choices in the context of limit proofs.

Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
Alrighty-then :smile:

I am going over a proof in Thomas' Calculus and I am not understanding a step.

Given that [itex]\lim_{x\rightarrow c}f(x)=L \text{ and } \lim_{x\rightarrow c}g(x)=M[/itex] prove that [itex]\lim_{x\rightarrow c}(f(x)+g(x))=L+M[/itex]

Solution: He uses the triangle inequality to break up the summation

[itex]|f(x)+g(x))-(L+M)|\le|f(x)-L|+|g(x)-M|[/itex]

Then he says:

"Since [itex]\lim_{x\rightarrow c}f(x)=L[/itex], there exists some number [itex]\delta_1>0[/itex] such that for all x

[itex]0<|x-c|<\delta_1\Rightarrow|f(x)-L|<\epsilon/2[/itex] "

I get lost there. Why [itex]\epsilon/2[/itex]?

Thanks!

PS: Please don't yell at me Dick :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because he is going to want to say that |f(x)-L|+|g(x)-M| is less than epsilon. If each term is less than epsilon/2 then they sum to less than epsilon. He's just picking the funny number 'e/2' so that he gets a nice neat 'e' at the end.
 
No reason really. e/2 is an arbitrary number >0 just like e. He just plans to add another e/2 to it later to get e. He may just as well have started with e and the end of the proof would have 2e, which would have been fine as well, except for pedantry interested in getting the exact statement of a previous theorem/axiom.
 
Okay then. So it was just a 'choice' that he made. Not something that was 'dictated' by any of the given conditions.

That is, since we can get within 'e' of 'L' at some delta, then for the sake of the proof, let's go ahead and get within 'e/2' of 'L'
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K