Proof that a limit does not exist with delta-epsilon definition

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 does not exist using the delta-epsilon definition. The user seeks guidance on how to negate the limit definition correctly and apply it to their specific case. Key points include the realization that the limit does not exist because the left-hand limit approaches negative infinity while the right-hand limit approaches positive infinity. Additionally, the conversation emphasizes the need to demonstrate that for any chosen epsilon, there exists an x within a delta neighborhood that does not satisfy the limit condition. The thread concludes with a request for clarification on how to structure the proof effectively.
vertciel
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Hello there,

I would like to learn how I can use the formal definition of a limit to prove that a limit does not exist. Unfortunately, my textbook (by Salas) does not offer any worked examples involving the following type of limit so I am not sure what to do. I write below that delta = 1 would seem to work because f(x) = 1/x increases without bounds on (0,1].

Thank you for your help.

---

Homework Statement



\begin{align}<br /> &amp; \text{Prove that }\underset{x\to 0}{\mathop{\lim }}\,\frac{1}{x}\text{ does not exist}\text{.} <br /> <br /> \end{align}

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


&gt;\begin{align}<br /> &amp; \text{I know that I must negate the limit definition, as such:} \\ <br /> &amp; \forall \text{L,}\exists \varepsilon \text{0 st }\delta \text{0, }\left| x-c \right|&lt;\delta \Rightarrow \left| f(x)-L \right|\ge \varepsilon \\ <br /> &amp; \text{Also, I believe that if I take }\delta =1,\text{ this value will help me with the above}\text{.} \\ <br /> &amp; \text{However, how would I go about doing this? } <br /> \end{align}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You made errors in your negation (both semantic and typographical):

<br /> \forall L : \exists \epsilon &gt; 0 : \forall \delta &gt; 0 : \exists x : \left(0 &lt; \left|x-c\right| &lt; \delta\right) \,\, \wedge \,\, \left( \left| f(x) - L \right| &gt; \epsilon\right)
 
Thank you for your response, Hurkyl.

However, how would I show with an assumed delta value that the above limit does not exist?
 
Well, I was hoping that you'd notice that delta is universally quantified ("for all"), so that it's insufficient to assume it's one particular value.

However, since it is universally quantified, it is certainly true that if the limit does not exist, then the following statement is also true:
<br /> \forall L : \exists \epsilon &gt; 0 : \exists x : \left(0 &lt; \left|x-0\right| &lt; 1\right) \,\, \wedge \,\, \left( \left| \frac{1}{x} - L \right| &gt; \epsilon\right)<br />​
But two things:
. I can't effectively help you prove this statement if I have no idea what you've done on the problem and where specifically you're stuck
. I want to re-emphasize that if we prove this statement, we have not yet proven the limit does not exist.

(However, trying to work through this special case before tackling the full problem might be a good idea)
 
Thanks for your response, Hurkyl.

Proof that \lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{x} does not exist:

\lim_{x \rightarrow 0^{-}} \frac{1}{x} = \frac{1}{0^{-}} = -\infty

\lim_{x \rightarrow 0^{+}} \frac{1}{x} = \frac{1}{0^{+}} = \infty

Since the right- and left-sided limits differ and do not exist in the first place, \lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{x} does not exist.

As to my original problem, I simply do not know whether to start the proof that the above limit does not exist.

However, would I set epsilon to an arbitrary vallue and show that no delta can "reflect" this range on f(x) = \frac{1}{x}? If so, how would I do this?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K