Proving the Existence of Limits for Functions: A Study Guide

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
9 replies · 2K views
╔(σ_σ)╝
Messages
839
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Doing some studying for my midterm and came across these problems ...
a)
[itex]f : D \rightarrow R[/itex] with [itex]a \leq f(x) \leq b[/itex] for all c in D\{c}.

Show that if [itex]lim_{x \rightarrow c} f(x)[/itex] exist then [itex]a \leq lim_{x \rightarrow c} f(x) \leq b[/itex]

b) Same thing except we have [itex]g(x) \leq f(x) \leq h(x)[/itex] and [itex]lim_{x \rightarrow c} g(x) = lim_{x \rightarrow c} h(x) = L[/itex]

I need to show [itex]lim_{x \rightarrow c} f(x)= L[/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



Is this as easy as I think or am I supposed to be more rigorous about the proof ?
a)
[tex]a - L \leq lim_{x \rightarrow c} f(x) -L \leq b - L[/tex]

[tex]a - L \leq 0 \leq b - L[/tex]

Thus,

[tex]a \leq L \leq b[/tex]b) Same "proof" as in part 1.

:(

Will this suffice ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well the question tells me ...
[tex]a \leq f(x) \leq b[/tex].

I subtracted L from all sides and took the limit of all sides. The question said that L exist.
 
Ah yes, but wasn't it easier to just take the limit of [tex]a\leq f(x)\leq b[/tex].

And you still need to show that if [tex]a\leq f(x)[/tex] then [tex]a\leq \lim{h(x)}[/tex], i.e. that limits preserve inequalities. I know this is trivial, but hey...

The same reasoning won't work for the second question, since you don't know there that [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow c}{f(x)}[/tex] exists. If it existed, then it would equal L, but you don't know it exists yet... I fear an epsilon-delta is the only thing that can do the trick for question 2...
 
micromass said:
Ah yes, but wasn't it easier to just take the limit of [tex]a\leq f(x)\leq b[/tex].

And you still need to show that if [tex]a\leq f(x)[/tex] then [tex]a\leq \lim{h(x)}[/tex], i.e. that limits preserve inequalities. I know this is trivial, but hey...

The same reasoning won't work for the second question, since you don't know there that [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow c}{f(x)}[/tex] exists. If it existed, then it would equal L, but you don't know it exists yet... I fear an epsilon-delta is the only thing that can do the trick for question 2...

XD it was late at night. You are right i should have just taken the limit of the inequality right away.

So proof 1 is okay, right ?

For proof two I took limit g(x) - L = limit of h(x) - L = 0

And i got [itex]0 \leq lim f(x) - L \leq 0[/itex]

Thus,
lim f(x) = L.
 
True.
I guess I will use my friends epsilon and delta.

I'll do that and get back to you l8tr.

:-)
 
I have a proof.

Let U be a neighbourhood of c and V be an epsilon neighbourhood of L.

Since when x is in U, g and h are in V and f is between g,h then f must be in V when x is in U.

Thus, lim f(x) = L.

I have a second proof btw.

How's this ?
 
Alright, thanks a bunch :-).