Solving a \lim Problem with an \epsilon-\delta Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter ultima9999
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument
ultima9999
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Hey, I'm stuck on this problem and just wanted some help if possible.

Prove, using an \epsilon - \delta argument, that \lim_{\substack{x\rightarrow -2}} \frac {1 - x - 2x^2} {x + 1} = 5

Ok, so I've answered so far with:

\lim_{\substack{x\rightarrow -2}} \frac {1 - x - 2x^2} {x + 1} = 5 if \forall \epsilon > 0, \exists \delta > 0 : 0 < |x + 2| < \delta \Rightarrow |-2x - 4| < \epsilon

Investigation to find \delta
|-2x - 4| < \epsilon
\Rightarrow -2|x + 2| < \epsilon
\Rightarrow |x + 2| > -\frac {\epsilon} {2}

Therefore, choose \delta = -\frac {\epsilon} {2}

My problem is here, my statement was that |x + 2| < \delta, but my answer so far has given me |x + 2| > \delta. Also, \delta is < 0.

What should I change?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's where you made the mistake:
ultima9999 said:
|-2x - 4| < \epsilon
\Rightarrow -2|x + 2| < \epsilon
Think about it: |-2x - 4| must be greater than or equal to zero, while -2|x+2| must be less than or equal to zero. They can not possibly be equal for all x.
 
I don't really understand what you're getting at...

edit: Could I do this?
\begin{align*}<br /> |-2x - 4| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow -2|x + 2| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow |x + 2| &gt; -\frac {\epsilon} {2}\\<br /> \Leftrightarrow |x + 2| &lt; \frac {\epsilon} {2} \ or\ |x + 2| &gt; -\frac {\epsilon} {2}<br /> \end{align*}

Therefore, choose \delta = \frac {\epsilon} {2}

Proof:
Let \epsilon &gt; 0 and set \delta = \frac {\epsilon} {2}

\begin{align*}<br /> |x + 2| &lt; \delta\\<br /> \Rightarrow |x + 2| &lt; \frac {\epsilon} {2}\\<br /> \Leftrightarrow -\frac {\epsilon} {2} &lt; |x + 2| &lt; \frac {\epsilon} {2}\\<br /> \Rightarrow |x + 2| &gt; -\frac {\epsilon} {2}\\<br /> \Rightarrow -2|x + 2| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow |-2x - 4| &lt; \epsilon<br /> \end{align*}
As required.
 
Last edited:
The point is that you should not pull out negative numbers from inside an abs value symbol and leave them as negative: |-2x-4| = 2|x+2|.

It is 'vacuous' to say that -2|x+2|<e in the sense that it is always true since the left hand side is always negative and the right hand side is positive by assumption.

In effect you have gone through several unnecessary and dubious steps to conclude that |x+2|<e/2 which you could have done straight away by noting that |-2x-4|=2|x+2|. I say dubious because you have concluded that either this holds OR that |x+2|<e/-2, which is always true (for positive e) hence you have not got any restriction on x at all.
 
Ok, I fixed it up to make it look like this:Prove, using an \epsilon - \delta argument, that \lim_{\substack{x\rightarrow -2}} \frac {1 - x - 2x^2} {x + 1} = 5\lim_{\substack{x\rightarrow -2}} \frac {1 - x - 2x^2} {x + 1} = 5 if \forall \epsilon &gt; 0, \exists \delta &gt; 0 : 0 &lt; |x + 2| &lt; \delta \Rightarrow |-2x - 4| &lt; \epsilon

Investigation to find \delta
\begin{align*}<br /> |-2x - 4| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow |2x + 4| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow 2|x + 2| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow |x + 2| &lt; \frac {\epsilon} {2}<br /> \end{align*}

Therefore, choose \delta = \frac {\epsilon} {2}

Proof:
Let \epsilon &gt; 0 and set \delta = \frac {\epsilon} {2}

\begin{align*}<br /> |x + 2| &lt; \delta\\<br /> \Rightarrow |x + 2| &lt; \frac {\epsilon} {2}\\<br /> \Rightarrow 2|x + 2| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow |2x + 4| &lt; \epsilon\\<br /> \Rightarrow |-2x - 4| &lt; \epsilon<br /> \end{align*}
As required
 
Last edited:
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top