Proving Continuity at a Point with Non-Zero Value: A Case Study

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FallArk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the continuity of a function at a point where the function value is non-zero. Participants explore the implications of continuity and the conditions required to ensure that the function does not take on the value zero in a neighborhood around that point.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a problem statement regarding the continuity of a function at a point where the function value is non-zero and suggests using a new function defined on a subset to verify continuity.
  • Another participant references the definition of continuity and proposes a method to find an interval around the point where the function remains non-zero by choosing an appropriate epsilon.
  • A later reply questions the assumption that the function value at the point must be positive, suggesting a more general approach that considers the absolute value of the function value.
  • Participants discuss the necessity of considering two cases based on whether the function value at the point is positive or negative.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to establish conditions for the function remaining non-zero in a neighborhood of the point, but there is disagreement on whether the function value must be positive for the argument to hold. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the function value being negative.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of specifying conditions under which the continuity argument holds, particularly regarding the sign of the function value at the point of interest.

FallArk
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Problem: Let $f$ be defined on an open interval $I$, and $c \in I$. Prove that, if $f$ is continuous at $c$ and $f(c) ≠ 0$, then there is an open interval $J \subset I$ such that $c \in J$ and $f(x) ≠ 0$, for any $x \in J$.

I was thinking another function $g$ defined on the subset $J$ and $g = f$, then I can find a way to verify that $g$ is also continuous at $c$. But I am currently stuck on how to prove that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
FallArk said:
Problem: Let f be defined on an open interval I, and c ∈ I. Prove that, if f is continuous at c and f(c) ≠ 0, then there is an open interval J ∈ (is a subset, I can't find the symbol) I such that c ∈ J and f(x) ≠ 0, for any x ∈ J.
I was thinking another function g defined on the subset J and g = f, then I can find a way to verify that g is also continuous at c. But I am currently stuck on how to prove that.

Hi FallArk! ;)

Let's take the definition of continuity into account:
$$\lim_{x\to c} f(x) = f(c) \ne 0$$
This means that for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a $\delta >0$ such that for any $x$ with $|x-c|<\delta$ we have that $|f(x)-f(c)|<\epsilon$.
Let's pick $\epsilon = \frac 12 f(c)$, then $(c-\delta, c+\delta)$ satisfies the requirements for the interval $J$.

That is because any $x$ in that interval has an $f(x)$ that deviates at most $\frac 12 f(c)$ from $f(c)\ne 0$.
Therefore $f(x)\ne 0$ for any such $x$.
 
I like Serena said:
Let's pick $\epsilon = \frac 12 f(c)$, then $(c-\delta, c+\delta)$ satisfies the requirements for the interval $J$.

That is because any $x$ in that interval has an $f(x)$ that deviates at most $\frac 12 f(c)$ from $f(c)\ne 0$.
Therefore $f(x)\ne 0$ for any such $x$.

It's a great idea, but for this argument to work, $f(c)$ needs to be positive. It's possible to avoid cases by setting $\epsilon = \frac12\lvert f(c)\rvert$, and establish that $\frac12 \lvert f(c)\rvert < \lvert f(x)\rvert < \frac32\lvert f(c)\rvert$ in a subinterval of $I$. In particular, the inequalities imply $f(x)$ is nonzero for all $x$ in that subinterval.
 
Thank you so much! I knew there was something that the book did not mention, and there it is!

- - - Updated - - -

Euge said:
It's a great idea, but for this argument to work, $f(c)$ needs to be positive. It's possible to avoid cases by setting $\epsilon = \frac12\lvert f(c)\rvert$, and establish that $\frac12 \lvert f(c)\rvert < \lvert f(x)\rvert < \frac32\lvert f(c)\rvert$ in a subinterval of $I$. In particular, the inequalities imply $f(x)$ is nonzero for all $x$ in that subinterval.

so two cases? f(c)>0 and f(c)<0?
 
FallArk said:
so two cases? f(c)>0 and f(c)<0?

Yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K