Showing a fucntion is continuous on an interval

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the continuity of the function f defined by f(x) = x^(1/2) at every nonnegative number using the epsilon-delta definition of continuity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to establish continuity by finding a suitable delta for a given epsilon, while questioning the validity of certain inequalities. Some participants suggest using algebraic manipulation to simplify the expression for |f(x) - f(c)|, while others point out potential flaws in the original poster's reasoning.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering different perspectives and suggestions for approaching the proof. There is recognition of the complexity of the topic, and some guidance has been provided regarding the manipulation of expressions to facilitate finding delta.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the original poster's familiarity with the classic epsilon-delta definition of continuity, which may limit the applicability of certain advanced approaches. Additionally, the discussion highlights the need for careful consideration of the assumptions made in the inequalities presented.

k3k3
Messages
76
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Use the definition of continuity to prove that the function f defined by f(x)=x^(1/2) is continuous at every nonnative number.


Homework Equations


Continuity in this text is defined as

Let I be an interval, let f:I→ℝ, and let c be in I. The function f is continuous at c if for each ε>0 there exists a δ>0 such that |f(x)-f(c)|<ε for all x in I that satisfy |x-c|<δ.


The Attempt at a Solution



For x=0 is easy. I've shown that.

For x>0,

Let ε > 0
Let I=[0,∞)

Find δ > 0 such that |f(x)-f(c)| < ε for all x in I that satisfy |x-c|<δ

I know |x^(1/2)-c^(1/2)| ≤ |x-c| intuitively.

I've tried saying that since |x^(1/2)| ≤ |x| and |-(c^(1/2)| ≤ |-c| => |x^(1/2)| + |c^(1/2)| ≤ |x|+|-c| => |x^(1/2)+c^(1/2)|≤ |x| + |c|

This is where I am stuck. I am not sure how to show this properly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
|x-c|<δ corresponds to (c-δ) < x < (c+δ). Choose either and show that |f(x)-f(c)| < ε, where ε goes to 0 if δ goes to 0.
I think you will have to use the approximation (1+x)n = 1 + nx when x << 1.
 
Well, first off, it isn't true that |x^(1/2)| ≤ |x|. What if x=0.25? Then x^(1/2)=0.5, so the inequality fails.

Let's look at [itex]|f(x)-f(c)|=|\sqrt{x}-\sqrt{c}|[/itex]. If you multiply the top and the bottom of the expression in modulus by [itex]\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{c}[/itex], then you get
[tex]|f(x)-f(c)|=\left|\frac{x-c}{\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{c}}\right|=\frac{|x-c|}{\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{c}}.[/tex]
Supposing [itex]|x-c|<\delta[/itex] for some delta that is yet to be determined, you have
[tex]|f(x)-f(c)|<\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{c}}.[/tex]
We're nearly there... we just need to choose delta so that this expression is less than epsilon. However, we still have x in our denominator, and delta shouldn't depend on x, only c. Can you think of a way of manipulating this so that delta is a bit more... obvious to choose?

Don't look at the spoiler below until you've tried at least 10 minutes to figure this out, otherwise you won't learn. Real Analysis is considered the most difficult 2nd-year math course at my university, and if yours is anything like mine, then you will need to practice.

Hint: [itex]\delta=\epsilon\sqrt{c}[/itex] will work...
 
Sourabh N said:
|x-c|<δ corresponds to (c-δ) < x < (c+δ). Choose either and show that |f(x)-f(c)| < ε, where ε goes to 0 if δ goes to 0.
I think you will have to use the approximation (1+x)n = 1 + nx when x << 1.

The OP has said that their definition of continuity is the classic epsilon-delta definition. If they haven't seen the equivalent (rigorous) definition using limits, then I think it's inappropriate to suggest this approach.
 
christoff said:
The OP has said that their definition of continuity is the classic epsilon-delta definition. If they haven't seen the equivalent (rigorous) definition using limits, then I think it's inappropriate to suggest this approach.

Fair enough.
 
Thanks guys. I will work on it some more before looking at the spoiler.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K