Prove a limit exists using formal definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luscinia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Limit
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the limit lim (x->1) x² using the ε-δ definition. Participants explore how to relate |f(x)-1|<ε to |x-a|<δ, with a particular emphasis on the hint provided by the professor regarding δ. There is confusion about the role of k0 and the meaning of min{...} in the context of the limit proof. A key realization is that the expression |x²-1| can be factored into (x-1)(x+1), which helps in establishing bounds for ε. Ultimately, the consensus is to set δ as min{1, ε/3} to ensure the limit is correctly proven.
Luscinia
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Calculate the value of the limit and justify your answer with the ε-δ definition of the limit.
lim (x->1) x2

Homework Equations


My professor gave us the hint that we have to take δ as 0<δ≤ k0 so that δ(ε)=min{k0,ε/ (k0+2)}

I'm guessing that k0 is meant to be any number though it's usually 1?

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm trying to relate |f(x)-1|<ε to |x-a|<δ
|x2-1| < ε
-ε < x2-1 <ε
-ε+1 < x2 <ε+1
(-ε+1)1/2-1 < x-1 < (ε+1)1/2-1

I'm not sure what to do from here. I'm guessing that
δ=(-ε+1)1/2-1 or (ε+1)1/2-1
but I have no clue where to go from there.

I've tried doing this another way as well to make use of a k0 from my professor's hint

|x2-1| < ε
-ε < x2-1 <ε
-ε+1 < x2 <ε+1
-ε+1 < x x < ε+1 where if we assume that |x|<k0=1, we can then assume that -ε+1 < k0x < ε+1
(-ε+1)/k0 - 1 < x-1< (ε+1)/k0 - 1
This still doesn't give me what my professor hinted at though. (I don't know what to do after that.)
Also, what does the min{_____,_______} mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Luscinia said:

Homework Statement


Calculate the value of the limit and justify your answer with the ε-δ definition of the limit.
lim (x->1) x2

Homework Equations


My professor gave us the hint that we have to take δ as 0<δ≤ k0 so that δ(ε)=min{k0,ε/ (k0+2)}

I'm guessing that k0 is meant to be any number though it's usually 1?

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm trying to relate |f(x)-1|<ε to |x-a|<δ
|x2-1| < ε
-ε < x2-1 <ε
-ε+1 < x2 <ε+1
(-ε+1)1/2-1 < x-1 < (ε+1)1/2-1

I'm not sure what to do from here. I'm guessing that
δ=(-ε+1)1/2-1 or (ε+1)1/2-1
but I have no clue where to go from there.

I've tried doing this another way as well to make use of a k0 from my professor's hint

|x2-1| < ε
-ε < x2-1 <ε
-ε+1 < x2 <ε+1
-ε+1 < x x < ε+1 where if we assume that |x|<k0=1, we can then assume that -ε+1 < k0x < ε+1
(-ε+1)/k0 - 1 < x-1< (ε+1)/k0 - 1
This still doesn't give me what my professor hinted at though. (I don't know what to do after that.)
Also, what does the min{_____,_______} mean?
k0 might be 1. It's just some unspecified number.

min{..., ...} means the minimum of the numbers in the list inside the braces.
 
I think I managed to connect the dots together. I shouldn't have gotten rid of the -1 in |x2-1|. Instead, I should have just turned it into (x-1)(x+1) and move on from there.

Assuming that x+1<1 and δ<1,
-1<x-1<1 so if we add +2 to both sides, we get 1<x+1<3
|x+1||x-1|<3|x-1|<ε
|x-1|<ε/3

But if I assume that δ<1, then δ=min{1,ε/3} won't make sense?
 
Luscinia said:
I think I managed to connect the dots together. I shouldn't have gotten rid of the -1 in |x2-1|. Instead, I should have just turned it into (x-1)(x+1) and move on from there.

Assuming that x+1<1 and δ<1,
Just assume that δ < 1. That makes |x - 1| < 1, which gives you bounds on |x + 1|, as you show below.
Luscinia said:
-1<x-1<1 so if we add +2 to both sides, we get 1<x+1<3
|x+1||x-1|<3|x-1|<ε
|x-1|<ε/3

But if I assume that δ<1, then δ=min{1,ε/3} won't make sense?
Now, choose δ = min{1, ε/3}. Typically, someone (else) would pick a small value for ε, so δ will typically be much smaller than 1.
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K