Tough limit proof for a general f(x) and g(x)

In summary, the conversation discusses finding a value for $\delta$ that satisfies the property for $f(x)$ and $g(x)$. The solution proposed involves computing $\delta_1(\varepsilon)$ and $\delta_2(\varepsilon)$ and taking the minimum of the two. This ensures that for any $\epsilon$, if $0 < |x-2| < \delta$, then $|f(x) - 2| < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ and $|g(x) - 4| < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, which in turn guarantees that $|f(x) + g(x) - 6| < \epsilon$. The conversation also includes a
  • #1
Amad27
412
1
Hello,

$f(x)$ and $g(x)$ have the following property: for all $\epsilon > 0$ and all $x$,
$$ \text{if} \space 0 < |x - 2| < \sin^2(\epsilon^2/9) + \epsilon \space \text{then} \space |f(x) - 2| < \epsilon$$
$$ \text{if} \space 0 < |x - 2| < \epsilon^2 \space \text{then} \space |g(x) - 4| < \epsilon$$

Find a $\delta$ such that:
(i) if $0 < |x-2| < \delta \space \text{then} \space |f(x) + g(x) - 6| < \epsilon$

This problem is from Spivak's calculus, so no wonder is it quite hard. I understand a few things.

The trick is to get $|f(x) - 2| < \epsilon/2$ and $|g(x) - 2| < \epsilon/2$

I need some help, as it is very tough to find a $\delta$ that will do. First should we bound $|x - 2| < c$ for some integer (positive) $c$?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here's how I approached this problem. Naming

$$\begin{aligned} \delta_1(\varepsilon) & = \sin^2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon^2}{9} \right) + \varepsilon, \\ \delta_2 (\varepsilon) & = \varepsilon^2, \end{aligned}$$

we have that if $0 < |x-2| < \delta_1 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right)$ then $|f(x) -2 | < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$. The same logic applies to $\delta_2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right)$. Computing them gives us

$$\begin{aligned} \delta_1 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right) & = \sin^2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon^2}{36} \right) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \\ \delta_2 \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right) & = \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4}. \end{aligned}$$

Taking the minimum

$$\delta = \min \left\{ \delta_1 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right), \delta_2 \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right) \right\} = \min \left\{ \sin^2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon^2}{36} \right) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4} \right\}$$

ensures that $0 < |x-2| < \delta$ guarantees $|f(x) - 2 | < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ and $|g(x) - 4 | < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$.

Therefore $0 < |x-2| < \delta$ implies that

$$|f(x) + g(x) -6| \leq |f(x) - 2| + |g(x) -4| < \frac{\varepsilon}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} = \varepsilon.$$

But I'm not completely sure on this.
 
  • #3
Fantini said:
Here's how I approached this problem. Naming

$$\begin{aligned} \delta_1(\varepsilon) & = \sin^2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon^2}{9} \right) + \varepsilon, \\ \delta_2 (\varepsilon) & = \varepsilon^2, \end{aligned}$$

we have that if $0 < |x-2| < \delta_1 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right)$ then $|f(x) -2 | < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$. The same logic applies to $\delta_2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right)$. Computing them gives us

$$\begin{aligned} \delta_1 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right) & = \sin^2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon^2}{36} \right) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \\ \delta_2 \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right) & = \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4}. \end{aligned}$$

Taking the minimum

$$\delta = \min \left\{ \delta_1 \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right), \delta_2 \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right) \right\} = \min \left\{ \sin^2 \left( \frac{\varepsilon^2}{36} \right) + \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4} \right\}$$

ensures that $0 < |x-2| < \delta$ guarantees $|f(x) - 2 | < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ and $|g(x) - 4 | < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$.

Therefore $0 < |x-2| < \delta$ implies that

$$|f(x) + g(x) -6| \leq |f(x) - 2| + |g(x) -4| < \frac{\varepsilon}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} = \varepsilon.$$

But I'm not completely sure on this.
$$\delta_1(\epsilon) = \sin^2(\epsilon^2/9) + \epsilon$$How does the statement imply:

$0 < |x - 2| < \delta_1(\epsilon/2)$ then $|f(x) - 2| < \epsilon/2$?
 
  • #4
I'm sorry, I didn't understand. How does what statement imply what? :(
 
  • #5
Fantini said:
I'm sorry, I didn't understand. How does what statement imply what? :(

Sorry for being unclear! I meant from:

$0 < |x - 2| < \delta_1(\epsilon/2)$

How do you get:

$|f(x) - 2| < \epsilon/2$?
 
  • #6
You compute $\delta_1(\varepsilon)$ so that $|f(x)-2|< \varepsilon$. From here you know that if you want $|f(x)-2| < h(\varepsilon)$ then you need to have $\delta_1(h(\varepsilon))$. You have a correspondence between the argument of $\delta_1(h(\varepsilon))$ and what $|f(x)-2|$ is less than. :)
 

1. What is a tough limit proof?

A tough limit proof is a mathematical technique used to prove that a certain limit exists or does not exist. It involves finding a rigorous and systematic approach to solve for the limit of a function as the independent variable approaches a specific value.

2. How is a tough limit proof different from other types of limit proofs?

A tough limit proof is different from other types of limit proofs because it involves using more advanced mathematical techniques and concepts. It is typically used to prove limits that are more complex and cannot be solved using basic algebraic manipulation or other simpler methods.

3. What is the purpose of a tough limit proof?

The purpose of a tough limit proof is to provide a rigorous and logical proof of the existence or non-existence of a limit for a given function. It is an important tool in calculus and other areas of mathematics, as it allows us to better understand the behavior of functions as they approach certain values.

4. Can a tough limit proof be applied to any type of function?

Yes, a tough limit proof can be applied to any type of function, including polynomial, rational, trigonometric, exponential, and logarithmic functions. However, the complexity of the function may determine the difficulty and complexity of the proof.

5. How can I improve my skills in solving tough limit proofs?

To improve your skills in solving tough limit proofs, it is important to have a strong foundation in calculus and other mathematical concepts. Practice is also key, so it is recommended to work through various examples and exercises to gain a better understanding of the techniques and strategies used in these proofs.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
11
Views
950
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top