Proof using Definition of Limit

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving the limit of a rational function as x approaches 4 using the epsilon-delta definition of limits. The function in question is f(x) = (x³ - 11x² + 43x - 60)/(x - 4), and the goal is to show that lim x->4 f(x) = 3.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss simplifying the function and the implications of using the simplified form for the limit proof. There are attempts to articulate the epsilon-delta definition and how to apply it correctly. Questions arise regarding the validity of certain steps and the need for clarity in stating the limit conditions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing feedback on each other's reasoning and clarifying the requirements of the epsilon-delta proof. Some guidance has been offered regarding the proper formulation of the limit statement, but no consensus has been reached on the correctness of the initial attempts.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the nuances of limit proofs, particularly the importance of the function's behavior as x approaches 4, while acknowledging that x cannot equal 4 in the context of the limit definition.

nugget
Messages
44
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



f(x) = (x3-11x2+43x-60)/(x-4)

Prove directly from the definition that limx->4f(x)=3.

Homework Equations



This requires an epsilon-delta proof, I think... (will refer to epsilon as E and delta as D)

The Attempt at a Solution



Firstly I simplified the numerator of f(x) to (x-4)(x2-7x+15), which enabled me to cancel the denominator.

After simplifying; f(x) = (x-4)(x-3)+3.

I want to prove that for all E>0, there exists a D>0.

Hence if |x-4|<D, then |x-4|.|x-3|+3<E.

I here assume that D≤1

Hence |x-4|≤1.

Now; |x-3| = |x-4+1|
|x-3|≤|x-4|+1

Hence |x-3|<2.

Finally,

|x-4|.|x-3|<2.|x-4|<2D

and |x-4|.|x-3|<E,

which means we choose D=min{1,E/2} i.e. delta is 1 unless E/2 is less than 1, in which case it is equal to E/2.

I want to know if I've done this correctly, and where I've gone wrong if not, also let me know if there are certain statements i should be making or ones I'm making incorrectly.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nugget said:
Firstly I simplified the numerator of f(x) to (x-4)(x2-7x+15), which enabled me to cancel the denominator.

After simplifying; f(x) = (x-4)(x-3)+3.

Careful, that isn't the same function as the original one. It's another function that happens to coincide in value for every point other than x=4. It's important to understand that, and also why can we use it in E-D proofs. Can you explain in words why it is sufficient to use the new function when doing these limits?

I want to prove that for all E>0, there exists a D>0.

This isn't complete. State it fully.

Hence if |x-4|<D, then |x-4|.|x-3|+3<E.

No, to show that the limit of f(x) as x goes to a is L, we must show that for any chosen E>0, there exists a value D such that if |x-a|< D, then |f(x) - L| < E.

So in this hence, you want to show that there exists some value D such that if |x-4| < D, |f(x) - 3| = | (x-4)(x-3)+3 - 3| = |(x-4)(x-3)| < E.
 
Hey thanks, think I've got it down now

I want to show that for E>0, there exists a D>0 such that if

|x-4|>0, then |(x-4)(x-3)|>0

The simplified function is f(x) = (x-4)(x-3)+3, where x≠4. It is sufficient to use this instead of the given one because we are looking for the limit of f(x) as x approaches four, hence x is never equal to four, and the denominator of the original function wouldn't equal zero under these conditions.
 
nugget said:
Hey thanks, think I've got it down now

I want to show that for E>0, there exists a D>0 such that if

|x-4|>0, then |(x-4)(x-3)|>0

That is NOT what you want to show, in fact that's true most of the time anyway.

You want to show that for every value of E>0 we choose, we can find some value D>0 such that if |x-4|< D, then |(x-4)(x-3)|< E .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K