Proving Limit of x^4 as x→p is p^4

  • Thread starter Thread starter asdf60
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
AI Thread Summary
To prove that the limit of x^4 as x approaches p is p^4, one can factor x^4 - p^4 into (x - p)(x + p)(x^2 + p^2). The challenge lies in controlling the term (x + p)(x^2 + p^2) without separating cases for p > 0 and p < 0. By bounding delta to |p|, it is possible to establish upper bounds for |(x + p)(x^2 + p^2)|, leading to a conclusion that 15p^3 serves as an upper bound. For the case when p = 0, using delta as |p| + 1 simplifies the analysis, while ensuring that the delta is small enough to avoid issues with the function's behavior. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate delta to maintain boundedness in the limit proof.
asdf60
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
how would i prove that lim of x^4 as x->p is p^4? x^4-p^4 = (x-p)(x+p)(x^2+p^2). I'm having trouble controlling the (x+p)(x^2+p^2) term without having to resort to proving for p > 0 and p < 0 seperately.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A standard idea is to place an upper bound on your delta to restrict x, then use this to bound the (x+p)(x^2+p^2) part. If you knew delta<=|p|, can you find an upper bound for |(x+p)(x^2+p^2)|?

This is assuming p is not 0. You could modify the delta above to something that would work in this case, or just deal with it seperately.
 
I get |x+p| < |3p| and |x^2+p^2| < 5p^2 if delta < |p|. So then 15p^3 is an upper bound. Is this correct? And as far as dealing with p = 0, can I just add one to the denominator? How did you come up with using |p| for delta?
 
That looks good for an upper bound. If p=0, you can't take |p| as an upper bound for delta, you'd want something like |p|+1, but this makes everything else slightly uglier (but perfectly doable). Taking |p| as an upper bound for delta was pretty arbitrary, it just made sure x was positive (or negative if p was negative) and this looked a little cleaner. You could just as well take 1 as an upper bound for delta here.

In general you want to make sure your delta is small enough that the piece you're trying to bound is actually bounded on |x-p|<delta, usually you're trying to avoid zeros in the denominator or where the function otherwise "blows up"
 
Thanks a lot for the help. I guess I had it right before, but it was really a mess without using |p| as the delta upper. as you said, this makes the upper bound much cleaner. For p=0, i just used delta = (epsilon)^(1/4).
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: Find Electric field due to charges between 2 parallel infinite planes using Gauss law at any point Here's the diagram. We have a uniform p (rho) density of charges between 2 infinite planes in the cartesian coordinates system. I used a cube of thickness a that spans from z=-a/2 to z=a/2 as a Gaussian surface, each side of the cube has area A. I know that the field depends only on z since there is translational invariance in x and y directions because the planes are...
Back
Top