Proving Continuity for h(x) = x^x = e^xlnx, Given f(x) = e^x and g(x) = lnx

  • Thread starter Thread starter kathrynag
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the continuity of the function h(x) = x^x, which can be expressed as h(x) = e^(x ln x), given that f(x) = e^x and g(x) = ln x are continuous for x > 0. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the continuity of composite functions and the product of continuous functions. They suggest using the epsilon-delta definition of continuity to establish that h(x) inherits continuity from f and g through their operations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of epsilon-delta definitions of continuity
  • Knowledge of composite functions and their continuity
  • Familiarity with the properties of exponential and logarithmic functions
  • Ability to manipulate limits and continuity proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of continuity in detail
  • Learn about the continuity of composite functions, specifically f(g(x))
  • Explore proofs involving the continuity of products of functions
  • Investigate the implications of continuity for exponential and logarithmic functions
USEFUL FOR

Students in calculus, mathematicians focusing on real analysis, and educators teaching continuity concepts in functions.

kathrynag
Messages
595
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


f(x)=e^x
g(x)=lnx
h(x)=x^x=e^xlnx

If f and g are continuous prove h(x) is continious for x>0

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Ok this confuses me, because I would think that it wouldn't be too bad too do if h(x)=f(g(x)). Maybe the book had a typo?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
this is just f(x*g(x)). What do you know about x*g(x) if g is continuous?
 
Office_Shredder said:
this is just f(x*g(x)). What do you know about x*g(x) if g is continuous?

Then lx-x0l<\delta
Then lxg(x)-x_{0}g(x_{0})l<\epsilon
 
Hmm well if you've proved that the product of two continuous functions is continuous (which is easy, provided that you know the proof that the limit of a product is the product of limits), then I don't think you need to resort to epsilon delta for x*g(x).

Also, f is continuous, so basically you have a lot of continuous functions involved in different operations. If you've already proved that f(g(x)) is continuous at a point a if g(x) is continuous at a and f is continuous at g(a), then you could save yourself a lot of trouble.
 
snipez90 said:
Also, f is continuous, so basically you have a lot of continuous functions involved in different operations. If you've already proved that f(g(x)) is continuous at a point a if g(x) is continuous at a and f is continuous at g(a), then you could save yourself a lot of trouble.

Ok, how do I do that epsilon delta proof?
 
lx-al<\delta
lg(x)-g(a)l<\epsilon

f continuous at g(a)
lx-g(a)l<\delta
lf(x)-f(g(a)l<\epsilon
 
A few comments to point you in the right direction. We want |x-a|<\delta to imply that lf(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon.

kathrynag said:
lx-al<\delta
lg(x)-g(a)l<\epsilon

This is fine, except one variable should be changed. We want to somehow connect this to our second fact, which is

kathrynag said:
f continuous at g(a)
lx-g(a)l<\delta
lf(x)-f(g(a)l<\epsilon

Ok, obviously we want to be careful about using the same variables. Since x is used to represent elements in the domain of g, let's use y to represent the elements in the domain f. Making this change, we have

f continuous at g(a)
ly-g(a)l<\delta
lf(y)-f(g(a)l<\epsilon

Now note that if we replace y with g(x), which is certainly allowed, we are very close to what we need. Namely, lg(x)-g(a)l<\delta implies that |f(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon. But we also know that we reserved the variable delta for lx-al<\delta. So we need to change the delta in lg(x)-g(a)l<\delta to some other variable.

In fact, we can choose any variable that is greater than 0 (Why?). So let's choose d' (delta prime). Now how can we use the fact that d' > 0 to connect our delta in |x-a| < \delta to our epsilon in |f(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon?
 
snipez90 said:
A few comments to point you in the right direction. We want |x-a|<\delta to imply that lf(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon.



This is fine, except one variable should be changed. We want to somehow connect this to our second fact, which is
Should it be changed to a f or are you talking about a change from x to y?



snipez90 said:
Ok, obviously we want to be careful about using the same variables. Since x is used to represent elements in the domain of g, let's use y to represent the elements in the domain f. Making this change, we have

f continuous at g(a)
ly-g(a)l<\delta
lf(y)-f(g(a)l<\epsilon

Now note that if we replace y with g(x), which is certainly allowed, we are very close to what we need. Namely, lg(x)-g(a)l<\delta implies that |f(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon. But we also know that we reserved the variable delta for lx-al<\delta. So we need to change the delta in lg(x)-g(a)l<\delta to some other variable.

In fact, we can choose any variable that is greater than 0 (Why?). So let's choose d' (delta prime). Now how can we use the fact that d' > 0 to connect our delta in |x-a| < \delta to our epsilon in |f(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon?
Ok so there is d' such that lg(x)-g(a)l<\delta. then |f(g(x))-f(g(a)l<\epsilon
 
Ok, here's my start:
h(x)=x^{x}
Then h(x)=f(xg(x))
Choose \epsilon<0. There is \delta_{1}>0 such that if \left|y-x_{0}g(x_{0})\right|<\delta_{1}.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K