Proving Limit of Bilinear Function to 0

  • Thread starter Thread starter yifli
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the limit of a bilinear function approaches zero as its inputs tend to zero. The function is defined from R^n x R^m to R^p, and participants are exploring the implications of bilinearity in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss expressing the inputs in terms of a basis and how to represent the bilinear function. There is a focus on the relationship between the numerator and denominator as both inputs approach zero. Some participants question how to rigorously argue the behavior of the limit.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the structure of the function and exploring examples to clarify the general method. There is an emphasis on understanding the limit without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of proving a limit without providing complete solutions, and there is a focus on the properties of bilinear functions. Some assumptions about the behavior of the function as inputs approach zero are being examined.

yifli
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Prove that [tex]\mbox{lim}_{(h,k) \rightarrow 0} \frac{|f(h,k)|}{|(h,k)|} = 0[/tex], where f is a bilinear function from R^n X R^m -> R^p

I don't know where to start only given the information that f is bilinear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi yifli! :smile:

Start by putting

[tex]h=h_1e_1+...+h_ne_n[/tex]

and

[tex]k=k_1e_1+...+k_me_m[/tex]

where the ei form a basis.

Now, how can you write f(h,k) now?
 
micromass said:
Hi yifli! :smile:

Start by putting

[tex]h=h_1e_1+...+h_ne_n[/tex]

and

[tex]k=k_1e_1+...+k_me_m[/tex]

where the ei form a basis.

Now, how can you write f(h,k) now?

so f(h,k) can be written as follows:
[tex]f(h,k)=h_1(k_1f(e_1,\overline{e_1})+\cdots+k_mf(e_1,\overline{e_m}))+h_2(k_1f(e_2,\overline{e_1})+ \cdots +k_mf(e_2,\overline{e_m}))+\cdots+h_n(k_1f(e_n,\overline{e_1})+\cdots+k_mf(e_n,\overline{e_m}))[/tex]

e_i and \bar{e_i} represents the basis of R^n and R^m respectively

when both hi and ki tend to zero, I guess the numerator gets closer to zero faster than denominator because of the product hiki.
but how do you argue this rigorously?
 
yifli said:
so f(h,k) can be written as follows:
[tex]f(h,k)=h_1(k_1f(e_1,\overline{e_1})+\cdots+k_mf(e_1,\overline{e_m}))+h_2(k_1f(e_2,\overline{e_1})+ \cdots +k_mf(e_2,\overline{e_m}))+\cdots+h_n(k_1f(e_n,\overline{e_1})+\cdots+k_mf(e_n,\overline{e_m}))[/tex]

e_i and \bar{e_i} represents the basis of R^n and R^m respectively

when both hi and ki tend to zero, I guess the numerator gets closer to zero faster than denominator because of the product hiki.
but how do you argue this rigorously?

Indeed, let me illustrate this on an example. I hope the general method will be clear from that:

Take

[tex]f:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}:(x,y)\rightarrow xy[/tex]

Then we need to calculate

[tex]\lim_{(h,k)\rightarrow 0}{\frac{|hk|}{|(h,k)|}}[/tex]

The easiest thing to do is pick the norm (it works without this too).

[tex]|(h,k)|=\max\{h,k\}[/tex]

Then we know that [itex]h\leq \max\{h,k\}[/itex], thus

[tex]\frac{|h|}{|(h,k)|}\leq 1[/tex]

Hence

[tex]0\leq \lim_{(h,k)\rightarrow 0}{\frac{|hk|}{|(h,k)|}}\leq \lim_{(h,k)\rightarrow 0}{|k|}=0[/tex]

Try to do this in the general case...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K