Proving the Non-Negativity of a Limit: Does g(x) > 0 Imply M > 0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjgawp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the non-negativity of a limit in the context of epsilon-delta proofs. The original poster seeks to establish that if g(x) is non-negative near a point c and the limit of g(x) as x approaches c is M, then M must also be non-negative. Additionally, they question whether the condition g(x) > 0 implies that M > 0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of proof by contradiction and analyze the implications of the limit definition. They explore the relationship between g(x) and M under different assumptions, particularly focusing on cases where g(x) is strictly positive or negative.

Discussion Status

Several participants have offered hints and suggestions for approaching the proof, including analyzing inequalities involving epsilon and considering the implications of assuming M is negative. There is an ongoing exploration of the conditions under which the statements hold true, with no explicit consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty regarding their understanding of convergence and epsilon-delta proofs, indicating that they are still grappling with applying these concepts to more abstract scenarios. There is also a mention of a mistake regarding the assumption about the positivity of M in certain contexts.

bjgawp
Messages
84
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I've got another question involving epsilon-delta proofs, one that is less concrete:
Prove that if g(x) [tex]\geq[/tex] 0 near c and [tex]\lim_{x \to c} g(x) = M[/tex] then M [tex]\geq[/tex] 0. Furthermore, if g(x) > 0 does it follow that M > 0?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Starting off with some preliminary work:
Let [tex]\epsilon[/tex] > 0. We must find [tex]\delta[/tex] > 0 such that |g(x) - M| < [tex]\epsilon[/tex] whenever 0 < |x - c| < [tex]\delta[/tex]

Does anyone have a hint they could provide? I'm not even sure how the end result of this proof is suppose to look like so that's a major set-back in proving this. Simpler, concrete examples require finding a [tex]\delta[/tex] in terms of [tex]\epsilon[/tex] but I don't know how that would apply here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would do a proof by contradiction.

The furthermore part is true since g is strictly positive on a neighbourhood around c. Although, what can you say about the case where [itex]\lim_{x\to+\infty}g(x)=M[/itex] when g(x)>0 for all x. Is M>0? If you don't know how to evaluate these kinds of limits just think of a proof/disproof informally.
 
Last edited:
Hmm following your advice, the most I can come up with is trying to analyze the following
M - [tex]\epsilon[/tex] < g(x) < M + [tex]\epsilon[/tex]
which isn't a lot as the epsilon poses a problem in coming to a contradiction (such as M > g(x) or M > 0). Anything I'm missing o.O?
 
Last edited:
Suppose it was negative. Then we know by our delta/epsilon definition of convergence that g(x) must be negative as x gets gets close to c.

Prove this formally.
 
Hmm, sorry for my lack of knowledge but I haven't gone through anything involving convergence (Cauchy sequences?). We've just done a few lectures about epsilon-delta proofs but it's hard to apply what we learn from simple,concrete examples to the general cases. In any case, with the suggestion of doing a proof of contradiction, this is what I've gotten:
[tex]|g(x)-M|<\epsilon[/tex]
[tex]g(x)+|M|<\epsilon[/tex] (since L < 0 and f(x) [tex]\geq[/tex] 0)
[tex]0<|M|<\epsilon-g(x)[/tex]
[tex]g(x)-\epsilon<M<0<\epsilon-g(x)[/tex]

At this point, I can see that e - g(x) can certainly be less than zero if we restrict epsilon small enough. Does this seem right? I know I need to solidify this "proof", if you can call it,that even more.
 
Last edited:
Assume M<0. How about choosing epsilon=|M/2|? if |g(x)-M|<|M/2| then since we've assumed M negative, this forces g(x) to be negative.
 
I made a mistake, the furthermore part is not true. I was picturing continuous functions in my head for some reason. Let that be a hint.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K