MHB Simple Exercise Involving the Algebra of Limits

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Exercise 4.5 from Wrede and Spiegel's "Advanced Calculus," where the limit of a function involving cosine and sine does not exist. The main concern is the application of a theorem regarding the algebra of limits, specifically that the limit of a sum exists only if the limits of the individual functions exist. The participant questions the validity of W&S's reasoning, suggesting it may misapply the theorem by concluding that if one limit does not exist, the sum's limit cannot exist either. Another participant clarifies that through indirect reasoning, one can understand why W&S made their assertion, as assuming the existence of one limit leads to a contradiction. Ultimately, the original poster acknowledges the clarification and recognizes the flaw in their initial reasoning.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I need some help in understanding the reasoning and analysis in the solution to Exercise 4.5 in Robert C. Wrede and Murray Spiegel's (W&S) book: "Advanced Calculus" (Schaum's Outlines Series).

Exercise 4.5 in W&S reads as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3918
View attachment 3919
The reasoning/analysis that bothers me is when Wrede and Spiegel (W&S) write:

" ... ... Since

$$ \lim_{x \to 0} f'(x) = \lim_{x \to 0} ( - \cos \frac{1}{x} + 2x \sin \frac{1}{x} )$$does not exist (because $$\lim_{x \to o} \cos \frac{1}{x}$$ does not exist), ... ... "

The reasoning (despite its apparent plausibility) worries me ...

The reason this bothers me is that the above reasoning seems to draw on a theorem concerning the algebra of limits in a mistaken way. The particular theorem concerned states that the limit of a sum of functions is the sum of the limits ... ... indeed the theorem on the algebra of limits in W&S reads as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3920
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3921
BUT ... ... note that the theorem regarding the sum of limits assumes that the limit of $$f(x)$$ and the limit of $$g(x)$$ both exist when $$x \rightarrow x_0$$ and then states that

$$\lim_{x \to x_0} ( f(x) + g(x) )$$

$$= \lim_{x \to x_0} f(x) + \lim_{x \to x_0} g(x)$$

$$= A + B $$

The way W&S use this theorem in Ex 4.5 above seems to be to say that if the

$$\lim_{x \to x_0} f(x)$$

does not exist then the limit of the sum does not exist ... ... but what is the exact/rigorous justification for this? ... ... it does not seem to follow the theorem I have quoted ... ...

(Mind you, as I have indicated above, what they say sounds eminently reasonable ... intuitively speaking ... !?)One of the reasons for my caution regarding W&S's reasoning in Exercise 4.5 is that I began thinking of the known limit:

$$\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin \frac{1}{x} = 0
$$

If we took

$$f(x) = x$$ and $$g(x) = \sin \frac{1}{x}$$

and then applied the same reasoning as W&S above (although now applied to the limit of a product rather than the limit of a sum) then we could, I think, argue that because

$$\lim_{x \to 0} g(x) $$

$$= \lim_{x \to 0} \sin \frac{1}{x}
$$

does not exist, then neither does the limit of the product

$$\lim_{x \to 0} f(x) g(x)$$

$$= \lim_{x \to 0} x \sin \frac{1}{x}
$$

But we know that

$$\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin \frac{1}{x} = 0$$ !However, surely this is the same reasoning as W&S apply to Exercise 4.5? Isn't it?Can someone please clarify the above?

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

If the limit $\lim_{x\to 0} f(x)$ exists, then since $\lim_{x\to 0} 2x\sin \frac{1}{x}$ exists, Rule #2 implies $\lim_{x\to 0} \cos \frac{1}{x}$ exists, a contradiction. So, through indirect reasoning, we can see why the author made that comment (note: you were trying to use direct reasoning).
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

If the limit $\lim_{x\to 0} f(x)$ exists, then since $\lim_{x\to 0} 2x\sin \frac{1}{x}$ exists, Rule #2 implies $\lim_{x\to 0} \cos \frac{1}{x}$ exists, a contradiction. So, through indirect reasoning, we can see why the author made that comment (note: you were trying to use direct reasoning).
Thanks Euge ...

Refelecting on this ... Trying to follow your post ... but having some trouble so far ...

Peter
 
Peter, please let me know where you're having trouble so I can assist you.
 
Euge said:
Peter, please let me know where you're having trouble so I can assist you.

Thanks so much for your concern, Euge ... ...

However, after more reflection, I now follow your reasoning (which was pretty plausible anyway ... )

I was initially worried that what I thought was similar reasoning in the case of

$$\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin \frac{1}{x} = 0 $$

led to a wrong conclusion ... but I now see that this case is different ... the logic I was using was flawed and not the same as you used ... ...

Thanks again for your concern ... I really appreciate your help and support ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K