- #1

- 19

- 6

x > 0 for which f(x) is outside N1(A). I don’t get how they generalized the specific statement to all neighborhood of N(0). Thank you!

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- #1

- 19

- 6

x > 0 for which f(x) is outside N1(A). I don’t get how they generalized the specific statement to all neighborhood of N(0). Thank you!

- #2

- 18,516

- 21,338

There is no value ##f(x)## in ##N_1(A)## and you can do this for any ##A##, so ##\lim_{x \to 0^+}f(x) \neq A##. ##A=0## is also impossible, since ##0## isn't a limit point.

- #3

- 5,695

- 2,475

This is a subtle point and requires to have perfect understanding of the exist and for all quantifiers in the epsilon-delta definition of the limit. More specifically if one wants to prove that A is NOT a limit as x->0 then he has to prove that

$$\exists \epsilon>0 : \forall \delta>0 ,\exists x:0<|x-0|<\delta\Rightarrow |f(x)-A|>\epsilon$$

The epsilon is ##\epsilon=1## and the delta is any positive number because for any such delta there exists ##x<min(\delta,\frac{1}{A+2})## for which ##0<|x-0|<\delta## and ##|f(x)-A|>\epsilon=1##. We can choose any ##x<min(\delta,\frac{1}{A+2})## but for the proof we require to exist at least one such x (for every different delta).

So we don't actually have to prove that**all** the points of **every** neighborhood ##N(0)## are such that ##|f(x)-A)|>1##, but just that for every neighborhood## N(0)## there exists at least one point ##x ## such that ##|f(x)-A|>1##.

$$\exists \epsilon>0 : \forall \delta>0 ,\exists x:0<|x-0|<\delta\Rightarrow |f(x)-A|>\epsilon$$

The epsilon is ##\epsilon=1## and the delta is any positive number because for any such delta there exists ##x<min(\delta,\frac{1}{A+2})## for which ##0<|x-0|<\delta## and ##|f(x)-A|>\epsilon=1##. We can choose any ##x<min(\delta,\frac{1}{A+2})## but for the proof we require to exist at least one such x (for every different delta).

So we don't actually have to prove that

Last edited:

- #4

- 25,089

- 16,854

This seems like a slightly odd argument to me. The right-hand limit is clearly ##+\infty##, which can be proved quite easily. Then, you must have a general theorem that a limit cannot be both a finite number ##A## and ##+\infty##. That can be done once for all cases.In Apostol’s Calculus (Pg. 130) they are proving that 1/(x^2) does not have a limit at 0. In the proof, I am unable to understand how they conclude from the fact that the value of f(x) when 0 < x < 1/(A+2) is greater than (A+2)^2 which is greater than A+2 that every neighborhood N(0) contains points

x > 0 for which f(x) is outside N1(A). I don’t get how they generalized the specific statement to all neighborhood of N(0). Thank you!

View attachment 288821

For the same effort, you could have a theorem rather than a statement about a single function at a single point.

- #5

Homework Helper

2022 Award

- 2,774

- 1,382

In Apostol’s Calculus (Pg. 130) they are proving that 1/(x^2) does not have a limit at 0. In the proof, I am unable to understand how they conclude from the fact that the value of f(x) when 0 < x < 1/(A+2) is greater than (A+2)^2 which is greater than A+2 that every neighborhood N(0) contains points

x > 0 for which f(x) is outside N1(A). I don’t get how they generalized the specific statement to all neighborhood of N(0). Thank you!

View attachment 288821

The intersection of [itex]N(0)[/itex] and [itex](0, 1/(A + 2))[/itex] is [itex](0, x_0)[/itex] where [tex]x_0 = \min\{ \sup N(0), 1/(A + 2)\} > 0[/tex] since both [itex]\sup N(0)[/itex] and [itex]1/(A + 2)[/itex] are strictly positive. This intersection is never empty.

Last edited:

- #6

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,487

- 9,276

Because , as Delta2 suggested, to prove the limit A does not exist, you only need to provide one counterexample: A neighborhood of 0 here that does not map into an ##\epsilon##-neighborhood of the limit, for some value of ##\epsilon##. This is what was provided: a proof for ##\epsilon##=1: terms near 0 will map outside of any 1-neighborhood of any putative limit A.In Apostol’s Calculus (Pg. 130) they are proving that 1/(x^2) does not have a limit at 0. In the proof, I am unable to understand how they conclude from the fact that the value of f(x) when 0 < x < 1/(A+2) is greater than (A+2)^2 which is greater than A+2 that every neighborhood N(0) contains points

x > 0 for which f(x) is outside N1(A). I don’t get how they generalized the specific statement to all neighborhood of N(0). Thank you!

View attachment 288821

In other words: we showed that for a neighborhood of a potential limit A there is no x-axis neighborhood neighborhood mappi ng into it. Any such x-axis 'hood will map outside of the neighborhood (A-1,A+1).

Last edited:

Share:

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 692

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 825

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 944

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 374

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 853

- Replies
- 29

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 603

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 541

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 567

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 977