Proving Limit of Piecewise Function at x=0

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Harambe1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The limit of the piecewise function defined as $$f(x)=\begin{cases}\sin(\frac{1}{x}), & \text{if $x \notin \mathbb{Q}$} \\[3pt] 1, & \text{if $x \in \mathbb{Q}$} \\ \end{cases}$$ does not exist as x approaches 0. The epsilon-delta definition of limits is utilized to demonstrate this, showing that for any proposed limit L, there exists an epsilon such that no delta can satisfy the limit condition. By analyzing sequences of rational and irrational numbers approaching 0, it is established that the limit cannot converge to a single value, confirming the non-existence of the limit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of epsilon-delta definitions of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with piecewise functions
  • Knowledge of rational and irrational numbers
  • Experience with sequences and their limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Explore proofs involving piecewise functions and their limits
  • Investigate the behavior of sequences approaching a limit
  • Learn about continuity and discontinuity in piecewise functions
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians interested in real analysis, and educators teaching limit concepts in mathematics.

Harambe1
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm struggling to prove that a limit ceases to exist as x tends to 0 for the following function:

$$f(x)=\begin{cases}\sin(\frac{1}{x}), & \text{if $x \notin \mathbb{Q}$} \\[3pt] 1, & \text{if $x \in \mathbb{Q}$} \\ \end{cases}$$

I've attempted a proof by contradiction, assuming the limit is $L$ but I'm not sure how to then use the epsilon-delta definition to prove that a limit doesn't exist.

Any tips appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome, Harambe! (Wave)

Let's consider what it means for $\lim_{x\to 0} f(x) = L$. By definition, it means that to every $\epsilon > 0$ there corresponds $\delta > 0$ such that for all $x\in \Bbb R$, $0 < \lvert x\rvert < \delta$ implies $\lvert f(x) - L\rvert < \epsilon$. Let's negate this: $\lim_{x\to 0} f(x) \neq L$ if there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that for every $\delta > 0$, there is an $x\in \Bbb R$ such that $0 < \lvert x \rvert < \delta$ and $\lvert f(x) - L\rvert \ge \epsilon$. Now we have an $\epsilon-\delta$ formulation for the statement that $f(x)$ has no limit as $x \to 0$:

To every $L \in \Bbb R$, there corresponds an $\epsilon > 0$ such that for every $\delta > 0$, there exists an $x\in \Bbb R$ such that $0 < \lvert x\rvert < \delta$ and $\lvert f(x) - L\rvert \ge \epsilon$.

To prove the above statement, let $L\in \Bbb R$ and consider separate cases (a) $\lvert L \rvert \neq 1$ and (b) $\lvert L\rvert = 1$.
 
Another way to tackle this problem would be to use sequences. Suppose that $\lim_{x\to0}f(x) = L.$ It follows that if $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence with $\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n = 0$ then $\lim_{n\to\infty}f(x_n) = L.$

For your function $f(x)$, if $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence of rational numbers tending to $0$, then $f(x_n) = 1$ for all $n$. It follows that if $\lim_{x\to0}f(x)$ exists then that limit must be $1$. If you can then find a sequence of irrational numbers $\{x_n\}$ such that $\lim_{x\to0}f(x_n)$ is some number different from $1$, it would follow that $\lim_{x\to0}f(x)$ does not exist.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K