Proving the Limit of x^n as x Approaches a Using Epsilon-Delta Definition

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest2
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the limit of the function $$\displaystyle \lim_{x \to a} x^n = a^n$$ using the epsilon-delta definition of limits. Participants explore various approaches and techniques related to this proof, including algebraic manipulations and bounding techniques, with a focus on the theoretical aspects of limits in calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks how to prove the limit directly from the epsilon-delta definition.
  • Another participant inquires about previous attempts made by others in the discussion.
  • A participant provides a method involving bounding the expression $$|x^n - a^n|$$ and expresses uncertainty about how to bound the denominator in their approach.
  • A different participant shares a method from an external source, outlining a two-part procedure for establishing a delta that works for all epsilon values greater than a specific epsilon_0.
  • There is a question about whether $n$ is assumed to be a positive integer, indicating a potential condition for the discussion.
  • One participant suggests a bounding technique for the sum $$\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}$$ and proposes a crude bound based on the assumption that $a > 0$.
  • Another participant elaborates on bounding techniques using the triangle inequality and provides a detailed derivation leading to a choice of delta that ensures the limit holds.
  • One participant compares their approach to another's, noting similarities and differences in bounding techniques, and emphasizes that multiple methods can be valid for proving the limit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods and approaches to prove the limit, but there is no consensus on a single method being superior or universally applicable. The discussion remains open with multiple competing views and techniques being explored.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions are made regarding the positivity of $n$ and the value of $a$, which may affect the validity of certain bounding techniques discussed. Additionally, the discussion includes varying levels of rigor in mathematical reasoning, with some participants providing more detailed algebraic manipulations than others.

Guest2
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
How does one prove that $$\displaystyle \lim_{x \to a} x^n = a^n$$ directly from the epsilon-delta definition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What have you tried so far?
 
Ackbach said:
What have you tried so far?
$\displaystyle |x^n-a^n| < \varepsilon \implies \bigg|x-a\bigg|\bigg|\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}x^k a^{n-k-1}\bigg| <\varepsilon \implies |x-a| < \frac{\epsilon}{ \bigg| \displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}x^k a^{n-k-1}\bigg|}$.

However, I don't know how to bound the denominator.
 
One way to go about this is the approach my father has in his http://mathhelpboards.com/math-notes-49/method-proving-some-non-linear-limits-4149.html.

There are two parts to this method.

The procedure for obtaining $\delta=\delta_{0}$, (which
will work for all $ \varepsilon\ge \varepsilon_{0}$) is summarized as follows:
  1. Select an $ \varepsilon_{0}$ first
  2. Take $|f(x)-L|< \varepsilon_{0}$, work it algebraically to
    $L- \varepsilon_{0}<f(x)<L+ \varepsilon_{0}$, and finally work it down to $x_{1}<x<x_{2}$,
    where $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ will depend on $f(x)$, $L$, and the $ \varepsilon_{0}$ we
    pick.
  3. Take $\delta_{0}$ to be the lesser of $a-x_{1}$, and $x_{2}-a$.
  4. Then, for $|x-a|<\delta_{0}$, we know that $|f(x)-L|< \varepsilon$, for
    all $ \varepsilon\ge \varepsilon_{0}$.

Then we need to find $\delta$ that will work for all
$\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$. To summarize
our method:
  1. Take the ratio of $\tfrac{\delta_{0}}{ \varepsilon_{0}}$, both of
    which were determined in the previous section.
  2. Check to verify that $|g(x)|$ is indeed a minimum at one
    of the two points $a-\delta_{0}$ and $a+\delta_{0}$.
  3. If 2. checks out, then set

    $\delta=\tfrac{\delta_{0}}{ \varepsilon_{0}}\, \varepsilon$ for all
    $ \varepsilon< \varepsilon_{0}$.

In the final proof, we're going to set
$$\delta=\min\left(\tfrac{\delta_{0}}{ \varepsilon_{0}}\, \varepsilon,\delta_0\right).$$

So, how does this look for what we have here?
 
Guest said:
How does one prove that $$\displaystyle \lim_{x \to a} x^n = a^n$$ directly from the epsilon-delta definition?

Hi Guest,

Are we to assume that $n$ is a positive integer?
 
If all you are looking to do is bound:

$\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}$

you can choose $\delta < a$ (assuming $a > 0$, but the case where $a < 0$ is similar)

so that $0 < x < 2a$

Then $\left|\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}\right| < \left|\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} 2^ka^{n-1}\right|< 2^{n-1}na^{n-1}$

and the latter is a constant.

It's a *crude* bound, but that shouldn't matter.

For $a < 0$, choose $\delta < |a|$, so that $0 < |x| < |2a|$, and use the triangle inequality on the polynomial sum.

The basis idea is that we are going to require that $|x - a|$ be small anyway, so $x$ is going to be near $a$, so the sum:

$\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}$ should be bounded by some expression in $|a|$ ( I just chose $\delta < |a|$ to simplify what otherwise would be rather horrendous algebra).
 
Looking back at Guest's initial work, I assume $n$ is a positive integer. Let $a$ be a fixed real number and suppose $0 < |x - a| < 1$. By the triangle inequality, $|x| = |(x - a) + a| \le |x - a| + |a| < 1 + |a|$. Again, by the triangle inequality,

$$\left|\sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}\right| \le \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x^k a^{n-k-1}| = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x|^k|a|^{n-k-1} < \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} (1 + |a|)^k (1 + |a|)^{n-k-1} = n(1 + |a|)^{n-1},$$

and thus

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a|,$$

which can be made less than a positive number $\epsilon$ by making

$$|x - a| < \frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}.$$

Hence, given $\epsilon > 0$, I choose

$$\delta = \min\left\{1,\frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}\right\}.$$

For all $x$, $0 < |x - a| < \delta$ implies $0 < |x - a| < 1$ and $0 < |x - a| < \epsilon/[n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}]$, in which case

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a| < \epsilon.$$

Since $\epsilon$ and $a$ were arbitrary, $\lim\limits_{x\to a} x^n = a^n$ for all real numbers $a$.
 
Euge said:
Looking back at Guest's initial work, I assume $n$ is a positive integer. Let $a$ be a fixed real number and suppose $0 < |x - a| < 1$. By the triangle inequality, $|x| = |(x - a) + a| \le |x - a| + |a| < 1 + |a|$. Again, by the triangle inequality,

$$\left|\sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}\right| \le \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x^k a^{n-k-1}| = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x|^k|a|^{n-k-1} < \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} (1 + |a|)^k (1 + |a|)^{n-k-1} = n(1 + |a|)^{n-1},$$

and thus

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a|,$$

which can be made less than a positive number $\epsilon$ by making

$$|x - a| < \frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}.$$

Hence, given $\epsilon > 0$, I choose

$$\delta = \min\left\{1,\frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}\right\}.$$

For all $x$, $0 < |x - a| < \delta$ implies $0 < |x - a| < 1$ and $0 < |x - a| < \epsilon/[n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}]$, in which case

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a| < \epsilon.$$

Since $\epsilon$ and $a$ were arbitrary, $\lim\limits_{x\to a} x^n = a^n$ for all real numbers $a$.

For the interested reader, Euge's and my approach are much the same-the idea is to replace $|x|$ with something involving $|a|$. His bound is "tighter", at least for those $a$ where $|a| > 1$.

Indeed, through a "crude" lens, both bounds are on the order of $na^{n-1}$ (the *derivative* of $a^n$ with respect to $a$). This is no accident, the derivative is the BEST possible linear approximation (and $x - a$ is a linear factor of $x^n - a^n$).

One advantage to his method, is it is clear the denominator in one of his possible choices for $\delta$ can never be $0$ (since $1 + |a| > 0$ for all $a$). With my method, the case $a = 0$ has to be handled separately (hopefully it should be clear that this limit is easy to estalbish directly from the definition).

In any case, my main point is with problems like these, there's no "one perfect way to skin the cat". All you have to do is exhibit ANY $\delta > 0$ that works, and there's many,many ways you might derive such a $\delta$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K