Proof of lim(1/x) x->0 by negating epsilon delta definition of limit

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit of the function \(\frac{1}{x}\) as \(x\) approaches 0, specifically focusing on proving that this limit does not exist by negating the epsilon-delta definition of a limit.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the epsilon-delta definition of limits to show non-existence, raising questions about the correctness of their negation of the definition. Other participants suggest modifications to the definition to accommodate limits involving infinite quantities and question the validity of the original approach.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring different interpretations of the limit definition, with some providing guidance on how to adjust the definition for cases involving infinity. There is a lack of explicit consensus on the original poster's negation, but some participants indicate that they do not see issues with it.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the application of the epsilon-delta definition in the context of limits approaching infinity, and participants are discussing the implications of negating the definition in such cases.

can93
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I want to show that [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{x}[/itex] does not exist by negating epsilon-delta definition of limit.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


We say limit exists when:
[itex]\forall \epsilon > 0, \exists \delta > 0 : \forall x(0< \left| x\right| < \delta \Rightarrow \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| < \epsilon)[/itex]
And limit does not exist corresponds to:
[itex]\exists \epsilon > 0, \forall \delta > 0 : \exists x(0< \left| x\right| < \delta \wedge \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon)[/itex] (for any L ?)

We look for an \epsilon such that

[itex]\left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon[/itex]

then using triangle inequality,

[itex]\left| \frac{1}{x}\right| + \left| L \right| ≥ \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| > \epsilon[/itex]

therefore

[itex]\left| \frac{1}{x}\right| + \left| L \right| > \epsilon[/itex]

and

[itex]| \frac{1}{x}| > \epsilon - \left| L \right|[/itex]

for [itex]\epsilon > |L|[/itex], ( the other possibility gives no info since |x| > 0 already)

[itex]|x| < \frac{1}{\epsilon - |L|}[/itex]

we also had

[itex]0<|x|<\delta[/itex]

hence,

[itex]|x| < min( \delta , \frac{1}{\epsilon - |L|} )[/itex]

we found such x satisfies the above condition, for some epsilon and L.
Is that approach correct?? Especially, I am not really sure about the negation of the definition...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah now you have to make some alterations to the definition for it to work properly. You have a limit involving an infinite quantity which requires a change in your definition to be :

[itex]\forall ε>0, \exists δ>0 | 0<|x-a|<δ \Rightarrow f(x)>ε[/itex]

So for f(x) = 1/x, you desire a δ which ensures that f will be bigger than epsilon no matter what. You can start finding this delta by massaging the expression f(x) > ε to suit your needs.
 
alright,

for limits not dealing with infinity, is my negation correct??
 
can93 said:
alright,

for limits not dealing with infinity, is my negation correct??

I'm not sure why you would want to negate the statement because |f(x)-L| which translates into |f(x)-∞| is for lack of better term, a garbage statement.

That's why I suggested using the modified form of the definition so it at least makes sense.

To answer your question though, I don't see a problem with your negation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K