Proving Continuity of f(x) = \sqrt{x} for x>0

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the continuity of the function f(x) = √x for x > 0. Participants are reviewing and refining a proof, exploring different approaches and clarifications related to continuity, delta-epsilon definitions, and uniform continuity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof using a delta-epsilon argument, defining delta in terms of epsilon and x0.
  • Another participant suggests clarifying the proof by explicitly showing a chain of inequalities involving |f(x) - L|.
  • A different participant proposes starting with the expression |√x - √x0| = |x - x0| / (√x + √x0) to demonstrate continuity more clearly.
  • Some participants note that proving x > 0 is unnecessary since the discussion is limited to that interval.
  • There is mention of the uniform continuity of √x on the interval (0, ∞), with one participant asserting that the delta does not depend on x0.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of uniform continuity and provides reasoning based on compact metric spaces and the behavior of the derivative of √x.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding Lipschitz continuity versus uniform continuity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of proving x > 0 and the nature of continuity (uniform vs. Lipschitz). There is no consensus on the best approach to the proof, as multiple methods and clarifications are proposed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of delta-epsilon definitions and the implications of uniform continuity, while others focus on the specific proof structure. The discussion includes various mathematical techniques and assumptions that are not fully resolved.

jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50
I've been reviewing my calculus textbook and came across this problem: Prove that the function [itex]f[/itex] defined by [itex]f(x) = \sqrt{x}[/itex] is continuous if [itex]x>0[/itex]. Would anyone mind verifying (or correcting) my proof? Suggestions are welcome. Thanks!

Proof: Let [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] and choose [itex]\delta[/itex] such that [itex]\delta = \mathrm{min}(x_0, \epsilon\sqrt{x_0})[/itex]. Clearly if [itex]0 < |x - x_0| < \delta[/itex] then we have that [itex]0 < x < 2x_0[/itex] which proves that [itex]x > 0[/itex]. Since [itex]x > 0[/itex] we can apply a handy factoring technique and show that [itex]|x - x_0| = |\sqrt{x} - \sqrt{x_0}|(\sqrt{x} + \sqrt{x_0}) < \delta[/itex]. Using the fact that [itex]\sqrt{x} \geq 0[/itex] we know that [itex]\sqrt{x} + \sqrt{x_0} \geq \sqrt{x_0}[/itex] and consequently [itex]|\sqrt{x} - \sqrt{x_0}|\sqrt{x_0} < \epsilon\sqrt{x_0}[/itex] completing the proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


You seem to have chosen delta correctly and everything, but I think you could make it more clear by working with |f(x) - L| and end up with a chain of inequalities that shows that |f(x) - L| is less than epsilon. This makes it easier to follow the logic that you have set up.

*EDIT* Of course, in this case I meant L = f(x_0).
 


Just to make sure I'm understanding your advice, I should show the chain of inequalities like this:

[tex]\epsilon\sqrt{x_0} > |\sqrt{x} - \sqrt{x_0}|(\sqrt{x} + \sqrt{x_0}) \geq \sqrt{x_0}|\sqrt{x} - \sqrt{x_0}|[/tex]

Thanks for the suggestion!
 


I was thinking of something more along the lines of starting with

[tex]|\sqrt{x} - \sqrt{x_0}| = \frac{|x - x_0|}{\sqrt{x} + \sqrt{x_0}}.[/tex]

The very first expression is |f(x) - f(x_0)|. Now if you start at your line in the original proof "Using the fact that..." and take reciprocals of the fact you demonstrated, then the right hand side of the line above is less than

[tex]\varepsilon\sqrt{x_0}\cdot\frac{1}{\sqrt{x_0}},[/tex]

which follows from the inequality you demonstrated and your choice of delta.
 
Last edited:


Ah! I understand now. Thanks for the suggestion!
 


Just a quick note. You don't have to prove that x>0 because you are only dealing with those x that are in that interval in the first place. Also, sqrt(x) is uniformly continuous on x>0, which means that the delta doesn't depend on the x0 chosen. This might be good practice to do as well.
 


n!kofeyn said:
Just a quick note. You don't have to prove that x>0 because you are only dealing with those x that are in that interval in the first place. Also, sqrt(x) is uniformly continuous on x>0, which means that the delta doesn't depend on the x0 chosen. This might be good practice to do as well.
It is not, because [itex]sqrt^\prime(x) \to +\infty[/itex] as [itex]x \to 0[/itex]. It is, however, uniformly continuous on every interval [itex](\varepsilon ; +\infty), \varepsilon > 0[/itex].
 


[itex]f(x) = \sqrt{x}[/itex] is uniformly continuous on [0, infinity). It is uniformly continuous on [0, N] for any N > 0 by continuity on compact metric space (or more easily, note that sqrt(x) is holder continuous for say, [0,1], and this is really all we need), and for any [itex]\delta > 0,[/itex] [itex]f'(x) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}} \leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\delta}}[/itex] for x in [itex][\delta, \infty).[/itex]

Then uniform continuity on [0, infinity) comes from uniform continuity on say [0,1] and [1, infinity). You can prove this using some basic analysis. It's even easier if you overlap the intervals say by working with [0,3] and [1, infinity).
 


Argh, yeah, you're right, of course. I must have been thinking about Lipschitz continuity rather than uniform continuity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K