Prove lim x->0 f(x) = 0, if there is a number B?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LilTaru
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if there exists a number B such that |f(x)/x| ≤ B for all x ≠ 0, then the limit of f(x) as x approaches 0 equals 0. Participants are exploring the implications of this condition in the context of limit proofs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the role of B in the limit proof, with some considering the epsilon-delta definition of limits and others suggesting the squeeze theorem as a potential method. There is also a mention of manipulating inequalities and the implications of approaching zero.

Discussion Status

Several participants have offered different approaches, including the use of the squeeze theorem and the epsilon-delta definition. There is an ongoing exploration of these methods, with some expressing clarity and others still seeking understanding.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of the problem, particularly the requirement to prove the limit without assuming prior knowledge of theorems or definitions. The discussion reflects varying preferences for proof techniques.

LilTaru
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Prove lim x-->0 f(x) = 0, if there is a number B?

Homework Statement



Prove that if there is a number B such that |f(x)/x| <= B for all x # 0, then lim x-->0 f(x) = 0.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I don't understand how B comes into play in this question, or how I use it to prove the limit equals 0? I thought of using it in the epsilon-delta proof of a limit, but I don't know how that would work with it being |f(x)/x| <= B... We learned the pinching theorem earlier in the chapter and I thought that could help, but again I don't know where to begin! Help will be most appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I don't know if this would work, but have you tried multiplying both sides by x and then taking the limit?
 


So, it would be -Bx < f(x) < Bx? I got that far in one of my many side attempts of solving... let's see if I can take it all the way to a full solution!
 


Well, what do the two outer sides approach as x approaches zero?
 


You need to prove that

[tex]\forall \epsilon>0: \exists \delta>0: \forall x: |x|<\delta~\Rightarrow~|f(x)|<\epsilon[/tex]

You have given that [tex]|f(x)|< B|x|[/tex]. It seems you need to take [tex]\delta=\epsilon/B[/tex].
 


Why would you do all that, when you can just use the squeeze theorem?
 


I just like using the definition instead of theorems :smile:
 


Meh. I like using theorems because they make it easier. I don't like having to start from scratch every time I do a problem.
 


I think a light bulb went off in my head... hopefully! So using the squeeze theorem: since -Bx and Bx both approach zero as x approaches zero then f(x) also approaches zero! Making the lim x-->0 f(x) = 0? Hopefully this is correct because then it all actually makes sense :D!
 
  • #10


That seems correct, yeah.
 
  • #11


Awesome! Thank you very much! It makes a lot more sense now! :D
 
  • #12


No problem at all.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K