The Limit of a Root of a Function is the Root of that Limit (delta-epsilon)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a limit proof involving the function \( f(x) \) and its behavior as \( x \) approaches a certain value \( a \). The original poster attempts to prove that if the limit of \( f(x) \) as \( x \) approaches \( a \) is \( l \), then the limit of the \( n \)-th root of \( f(x) \) is the \( n \)-th root of \( l \), provided that the \( n \)-th root exists.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents a proof attempt and questions the validity of their method and the inequalities used. Some participants raise counterexamples, specifically questioning the conditions under which the limit holds true. Others suggest clarifying the implications of the proof and the assumptions made regarding the function \( f(x) \).

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original proof attempt, offering counterexamples and clarifications. There is a recognition of potential misunderstandings regarding the limit and the function's behavior. While some hints have been provided, there is no explicit consensus on the validity of the original proof or the counterexamples presented.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about specific values of \( f(x) \) and the limit \( l \), with some participants questioning the assumptions made in the proof regarding the continuity and behavior of \( f(x) \) near \( a \).

5hassay
Messages
81
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove:

If [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f \left( x \right) = l[/itex], then, if [itex]\sqrt[n]{f \left( x \right)}[/itex] exists, [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} \sqrt[n]{f \left( x \right)} = \sqrt[n]{l}[/itex].

Homework Equations



Nothing really...

The Attempt at a Solution



Okay, so here goes my attempt...

Proof. We can assume that

[itex]\forall \varepsilon > 0[/itex], [itex]\exists \delta_1 > 0[/itex] : [itex]\forall x[/itex], [itex]0 < \left| x - a \right| < \delta_1 \Longrightarrow \left| f \left( x \right) - l \right| < \varepsilon[/itex],​

whereas, we want to show

[itex]\forall \varepsilon > 0[/itex], [itex]\exists \delta_2 > 0[/itex] : [itex]\forall x[/itex], [itex]0 < \left| x - a \right| < \delta_2 \Longrightarrow \left| \sqrt[n]{f \left( x \right)} - \sqrt[n]{l} \right| < \varepsilon[/itex].​

But, [itex]\varepsilon > \left| f \left( x \right) - l \right| \geq \left| \sqrt[n]{f \left( x \right)} - \sqrt[n]{l} \right|[/itex]. Therefore, we conclude that given [itex]\varepsilon > 0[/itex], if, for all [itex]x[/itex], [itex]0 < \left| x - a \right| < \delta[/itex] for some such [itex]\delta[/itex], then we have both [itex]\left| f \left( x \right) - l \right| < \varepsilon[/itex] and [itex]\left| \sqrt[n]{f \left( x \right)} - \sqrt[n]{l} \right| < \varepsilon[/itex].

QED

So, I guess the first remark would be if my method was even right, where the second would be if my inequality is true (I can't think of a counterexample).

Anyway, much appreciation for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For n=2, f(x) = 1/2 and l = 0 is a counterexample.
 
vela said:
For n=2, f(x) = 1/2 and l = 0 is a counterexample.

Oh, drat. Then, I am at a loss on what to do.

Hmm... I'm likely misunderstanding, but if [itex]f \left( x \right) = 1/2[/itex], then wouldn't [itex]l = \lim_{x \rightarrow a} 1/2 = 1/2[/itex] for any [itex]a[/itex]? That is, I don't understand how the limit [itex]l[/itex] could be [itex]0[/itex].

---

Much appreciation
 
Sorry, what I wrote wasn't very clear. I meant if f=1/2 for some value of x near a, then the implication your proof relied on doesn't hold. I didn't mean that f was a constant function.
 
[itex]|\sqrt{f(x)} - \sqrt{L}| = \frac{f(x) - L}{|\sqrt{f(x)} + \sqrt{L}|}[/itex].

The denominator of the right side of the equation can never be zero unless f = 0 in some neighborhood of x= a and L = 0 (in which case the proposition you're trying to prove is trivial). Why?

Once you answer that, let x approach a and see what the limit of the right side of the equation is.
 
vela said:
Sorry, what I wrote wasn't very clear. I meant if f=1/2 for some value of x near a, then the implication your proof relied on doesn't hold. I didn't mean that f was a constant function.

JG89 said:
[itex]|\sqrt{f(x)} - \sqrt{L}| = \frac{f(x) - L}{|\sqrt{f(x)} + \sqrt{L}|}[/itex].

The denominator of the right side of the equation can never be zero unless f = 0 in some neighborhood of x= a and L = 0 (in which case the proposition you're trying to prove is trivial). Why?

Once you answer that, let x approach a and see what the limit of the right side of the equation is.

Alright... I've been trying to understand these hints, but I unfortunately don't seem to get anywhere. However, I realized that I don't need this proof as much as I thought, so I am just going to put this on the 'back burner' (if I got that right) for now. Thanks for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K