Proving a Limit: Rigour for Univ. Profs?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JG89
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the rigor required in proving a limit using the epsilon-delta definition, particularly in the context of university-level mathematics courses. Participants explore the appropriateness of certain approaches and the expectations of university professors regarding these proofs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using the expression \(\epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1)\) and questions its rigor for university standards.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of choosing delta based on epsilon, indicating that the initial approach may lead to mistakes.
  • A different participant agrees that rearranging for delta makes more sense and suggests developing the habit of solving for delta in proofs.
  • Some participants argue that the level of rigor required may depend on the specific course and professor, with suggestions that for introductory classes, a thorough proof is necessary.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the need for such explicit delta expressions, questioning the necessity of detailing every step in the proof.
  • Another participant points out that if the proof is being assessed, all steps must be shown to demonstrate understanding of definitions, warning against assuming constants are arbitrary.
  • Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of stating "it's obvious" in mathematical proofs, suggesting that this may not be sufficient in all contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that rigor is important in limit proofs, but there is disagreement on the specific requirements and expectations based on the course level and context. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take in proving limits.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the rigor required may vary depending on the stage of the student's academic career and the specific mathematical concepts that have been established in their coursework.

JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1
I was trying to prove a limit, and I found that I can take [tex]\epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1)[/tex] since as delta goes to 0, it's obvious that entire expression also goes to 0, so epsilon also goes to 0.

My question is, how is the rigorousness of this? Will it be good enough for a uni. prof? (I have no experience with them)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, you should end up with choosing the delta, letting the epsilon be the arbitrary quantity.

Your profs will put their claws into that mistake of yours!.

So, rearrange your estimate to choosing delta as:
[tex]\delta\leq(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{13}}+1)^{2}-1[/tex]
 
Thanks. It makes more sense when I re-arrange for delta. I know the steps are clearly reversible, but I guess I should get into the habit of solving for delta.
 
JG89 said:
Thanks. It makes more sense when I re-arrange for delta. I know the steps are clearly reversible, but I guess I should get into the habit of solving for delta.
Indeed you should!
 
JG89 said:
I was trying to prove a limit, and I found that I can take [tex]\epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1)[/tex] since as delta goes to 0, it's obvious that entire expression also goes to 0, so epsilon also goes to 0.

My question is, how is the rigorousness of this? Will it be good enough for a uni. prof? (I have no experience with them)

I'd say it's pretty obvious. It depends on the class and teacher I'd think. For a first-year analysis class, take the steps to prove it. If you're doing differential geometry, it's too basic to bother with.

If you want to avoid stupid pokes at your grade, you can always summarize a proof:

"The expression above approaches zero. [tex]\sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1)[/tex] approaches zero if [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1[/tex] approaches zero, [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1[/tex] approaches 0 if [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1}[/tex] approaches one, and [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1}[/tex] approaches one if [tex]\delta + 1[/tex] does, which it does.

Or more concisely, you can explain that since the [tex]\sqrt{13}[/tex] factor, and the other terms are constant functions, it simply follows from the algebraic rules for limits that the whole deal is zero in the limit.
 
Well, since OP couldn't possibly be studying higher order topics like differential geometry and still be uncertain about error estimation, I chose to regard OP as a bright student just having learned about the epsilo-delta formalism.
 
Wait, what the heck? What limit are you trying to prove and why is there so much talk about epsilons and deltas approaching zero? Isn't it obvious that in most cases, if delta is to depend on epsilon, which is just an arbitrary positive number, then the smaller the epsilon that you are given, your delta will usually get smaller as well?

I mean I'm assuming the only reason you found delta so explicitly is so that you can estimate |f(x) - L| by making it less than epsilon, in which case it suffices to just make sure delta is actually positive?
 
If they're asking you to find delta explicitly, you have to show every single step. They're testing to see if you understand the definitions, and forgetting which constant is arbitrary is a dead giveaway.
 
JG89 said:
I was trying to prove a limit, and I found that I can take [tex]\epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1)[/tex] since as delta goes to 0, it's obvious that entire expression also goes to 0, so epsilon also goes to 0.

My question is, how is the rigorousness of this? Will it be good enough for a uni. prof? (I have no experience with them)

Depends where in your uni. career this is. For example, if this is early, before the existence of square roots has been proved, you are not going to get away with this. Also "It's obvious" may not be a good enough reason in some contexts.
 
  • #10
g_edgar said:
Depends where in your uni. career this is. For example, if this is early, before the existence of square roots has been proved, you are not going to get away with this. Also "It's obvious" may not be a good enough reason in some contexts.

I figured. I haven't actually started uni. yet, I start next week :)

I really don't want to lose marks over stupid mistakes. I will just take arildno's advice and always express delta explicitly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K