Real analysis epsilon delta problem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving epsilon-delta proofs from Spivak's "Calculus," specifically Chapter 5 problems 10b and 10c. The user seeks to establish rigorous proofs for limits involving functions as x approaches 0 and x-a. The key takeaway is that for any ε > 0, a corresponding δ can be found to satisfy the limit conditions without unnecessary complications. The user is advised to simplify their approach by directly applying the epsilon-delta definition of limits.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of epsilon-delta definitions of limits
  • Familiarity with Spivak's "Calculus" textbook
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical rigor in proofs
  • Ability to manipulate inequalities in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Practice additional problems from Spivak's "Calculus" for mastery
  • Explore rigorous proof techniques in real analysis
  • Review related concepts such as continuity and differentiability
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, particularly those studying calculus proofs, educators teaching mathematical rigor, and anyone looking to strengthen their understanding of limit proofs in mathematics.

subsonicman
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I've been reading through Spivak's calculus, and the problem is the answer key i have a hold of is for a different edition so it often doesn't answer the correct questions.

Anyways, here they are:

Chapter 5 problem 10

b. Prove that lim x-> 0 f(x) = lim x-> a f(x-a)
c. Prove that lim x-> 0 f(x) = lim x-> 0 f(x^3)

I'm mainly having a problem with making my solution rigorous.

For b what I have is on the left side we know there is a α_1 for every ε so

|x| < α_1 and |f(x)-m| < ε

We can choose the same epsilon for the right side:

|x-a| < α_2 and |f(x-a)-n| < ε
So the two x's are necessarily related so I replace it in the second equation with y and I also choose α=min(α_1,α_2).

So we have:

|x| < α and |f(x)-m| < ε
|y-a| < α and |f(y-a)-n| < ε

So now I want to say something like, let y-a=x so if ε<|m-n|/2 then it is impossible for both to be fulfilled unless m=n but I'm not sure how to say that rigorously.

I have a similar problem with the next problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For b what I have is on the left side we know there is a α_1 for every ε so

|x| < α_1 and |f(x)-m| < ε

We can choose the same epsilon for the right side:

|x-a| < α_2 and |f(x-a)-n| < ε
So the two x's are necessarily related so I replace it in the second equation with y and I also choose α=min(α_1,α_2).

You're making things too complicated at this step. For all [itex]\epsilon >0[/itex], there is a [itex]\delta[/itex] such that if [itex]|x|<\delta[/itex], then [itex]|f(x)-m|<\epsilon[/itex] for some m.

Now, if [itex]|x-a|<\delta[/itex], the above sentence immediately says that [itex]|f(x-a)-m|<\epsilon[/itex] with no additional work
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K