Proof of False & True Statement: Limit Homework

  • Thread starter Thread starter MelanieSwan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of two functions as x approaches infinity, specifically examining the implications of their limits on inequalities. The original poster presents two statements regarding limits and inequalities, questioning their validity and seeking proof or counterexamples.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to provide a counterexample for the first statement and a reasoning process for the second statement, while others question the validity of the inequalities derived and seek clarification on the implications of the inequalities.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, offering critiques and alternative inequalities. There is a focus on understanding the logical flow of the arguments presented, with some participants seeking further clarification on specific points.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing the limits of functions and their relationships under certain conditions, with an emphasis on the need for precise definitions and the implications of inequalities in the context of limits.

MelanieSwan
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


true or false. prove or give counter example:
1. with x approaches to infinity suppose that lim f(x) = L and lim g(x) = M and f(x)< g(x), then L< M.

2. with x approaches to infinity suppose that lim f(x) = L and lim g(x) = M and f(x)<= g(x), then L<=M

for all x in D


Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



1. I know that this is wrong and one counter example I can think of is: f(x) = 2/|x| and g(x) = 3/|x| so for all non zero x, f(x) < g(x) but their limits are both zero.

2. I came up with this. I wonder if it's correct?
for every e > 0 and e is very very small then there exists m1 in N such that for every x>= m1 we have: |f(x) - L| <e rewrite as e> f(x) - L> -e (1)
similarly there exists m2 in N such that for every x>=m2 we have |g(x) - M| <e rewrite as -e< g(x)-M <e (2)
subtract (1) from (2) we have:
-2e < g(x) - f(x) + L- M) < 2e.
we only care about the right part of the inequation above so:
L-M < 2e +f(x) -g(x)
since f(x) - g(x) <= 0, there always exists e positive but very very small so that 2e + f(x) - g(x) <= 0
so L-M <= 0
so L <= M as desired.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The inequality 2e + f(x)-g(x) <= 0 is not always true. In particular if f(x)=g(x) it is false.

A better inequality would be
L-M < 2e

And since this holds for any epsilon

L-M<=0.
 
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
A better inequality would be
L-M < 2e

And since this holds for any epsilon

L-M<=0.
Could you explain more about this? I don't get the part from L-M < 2e >> L-M<=0 .
Thanks very much for replying :)
 
MelanieSwan said:
Could you explain more about this? I don't get the part from L-M < 2e >> L-M<=0 .
Thanks very much for replying :)

Okay. :)

f(x) - g(x) < =0

Add 2e to both sides

L - M < 2e + f(x) - g(x) <= 2e

Thus by transitivity

L - M < 2e (*)

Since (*) inequality holds for every single epsilon greater than 0 then
L - M <= 0
To see why suppose L - M >0 then L - M = x for some positive real number
if we pick e = x/4 then we get a contradiction. That is,

L - M= x < 2(x/4)

which is a contradiction if x is positive. Note: if x was negative the inequality would be true

Thus L - M <= 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K