Proving x^(1/3) is continuous.

  • Thread starter Thread starter luke8ball
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuous
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the function x^(1/3) is continuous across all real numbers using an epsilon-delta approach. A participant is struggling to establish a lower bound for the denominator in their proof, which is critical for completing the epsilon-delta argument. Suggestions are made to manipulate the expression |x^(1/3) - a^(1/3)| to facilitate finding the limit as x approaches a. The conversation emphasizes the importance of ensuring the denominator does not approach zero, particularly near the point of interest, c. The participants collaboratively explore algebraic techniques to solidify the proof's foundation.
luke8ball
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove x^(1/3) is continuous on all of ℝ.

The Attempt at a Solution



I've essentially gotten everything to the following point:

[|x-c|/|x2/3 + (cx)1/3 + c2/3|]<ε

I'm having trouble coming up with a lower bound for the denominator. Any help?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did it ask you to use the epsilon delta definition? Really?

Why don't you use the definition of the derivative to show that x1/3 is continuous everywhere?

First off, notice that x1/3 is continuous \forall x \in ℝ

Now you want to show that its derivative, \frac{1}{3} x^{- \frac{2}{3}} is also continuous \forall x \in ℝ.

Notice though, if you pick x = x0 and apply the definition of the derivative to x1/3, you will find that x1/3 has continuous derivatives everywhere except possibly the origin?

Now what happens when you apply the definition of the derivative on x1/3 for x = 0? Does your limit exist?
 
Thanks for your quick response! Unfortunately, we haven't gotten to the chapter on derivatives yet, and we're only allowed to use an epsilon-delta proof..
 
luke8ball said:
Thanks for your quick response! Unfortunately, we haven't gotten to the chapter on derivatives yet, and we're only allowed to use an epsilon-delta proof..

So then really what you want to show is :

\lim_{x→a} x^{\frac{1}{3}} = a^{\frac{1}{3}}

So apply your definition :

\forall ε &gt; 0, \exists δ &gt; 0 \space | \space 0 &lt; |x-a| &lt; δ \Rightarrow |x^{\frac{1}{3}} - a^{\frac{1}{3}}| &lt; ε

Now start by massaging |x^{\frac{1}{3}} - a^{\frac{1}{3}}| into |x-a| &lt; δ
 
Zondrina said:
So then really what you want to show is :

\lim_{x→a} x^{\frac{1}{3}} = a^{\frac{1}{3}}

So apply your definition :

\forall ε &gt; 0, \exists δ &gt; 0 \space | \space 0 &lt; |x-a| &lt; δ \Rightarrow |x^{\frac{1}{3}} - a^{\frac{1}{3}}| &lt; ε

Now start by massaging |x^{\frac{1}{3}} - a^{\frac{1}{3}}| into |x-a| &lt; δ

Sorry, I should've showed my earlier steps. I already started working on |x^{\frac{1}{3}} - c^{\frac{1}{3}}|.

From there, I multiplied the numerator and denominator to get to [|x-c|/|x2/3 + (cx)1/3 + c2/3|]<ε

Now I have my |x-c|, but I can't come up with a lower bound on the denominator. I've tried a bit of algebraic manipulation, but to no avail.
 
Ah I see, so. After you multiply by the conjugate you know that |x-c| < δ right? So that mess [|x-c|/|x2/3 + (cx)1/3 + c2/3|] < δ/|x2/3 + (cx)1/3 + c2/3|

( I'm assuming you've done your arithmetic correctly here, don't have time to check at the moment ).

Now you want to ask yourself, how big does :

|x2/3 + (cx)1/3 + c2/3| get?

Apply your triangle equality now.
 
I'm actually trying to see how small it gets. Hence, I need |x2/3 + (cx)1/3 + c2/3| to be greater than some fixed value.
 
Just so you know. It is ok to choose a two values of x near c to find this upper limit. After all, it is the only place of interest.
 
Do you mean going ahead and saying δ<1 (or some number) so that |x-c|<1, implying x>(1-c)?

I tried something of that sort but ran into some issues, because the bound still depended on the value of c.
 
  • #10
Yes.

Let sigma be less than 1. The |x-c|<1.
Thus, c-1<x<1+c. So substitute for which ever x to minimize
|x^(2/3) + (cx)^(1/3) + c^(2/3)|.

Clearly, for c-1 substituted for x is a lower bound of that expression.

Continue from there and also note that I'm assuming the expression is correct.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K