Using continuity to evaluate a limit of a composite function

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around evaluating the limit of a composite function using continuity and the epsilon-delta definition. A user attempted to solve the problem with a graphics calculator, finding the zeros of the quadratic function but struggling with domain restrictions. They noted that their method excluded certain values that were included in the solution. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how limits behave in specific regions and the implications of continuity on evaluating limits. The user expressed a need for clarification on applying their method effectively to obtain the correct values.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this problem,
1680658325619.png

1680658335960.png

The solution is,
1680658369794.png

However, I tried to solve this problem using my Graphics Calculator instead of completing the square. I got the zeros of ##x^2 - 2x - 4## to be ##x_1 = 3.236## and ##x_2 = -1.236##

Therefore ##x_1 ≥ 3.236## and ##x_2 ≥ -1.236##

Since ##x_1 > x_2## then,

Therefore ## (x | x ≥ -1.236 ) ## which is ##~(x | x ≥ 1 - \sqrt{5} )~## (sorry curly brackets were not working), however, my domain restriction excludes some other values shown in the solution. Dose anybody please know a way using my method to get those values?

Many thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In the process of ##lim_{x\rightarrow 4}## we put x in the region ##(4-\epsilon, 4+\epsilon)## for any small positive number ##\epsilon##, which is in your {x| 3.236<x} but not in {x|x<-1.236}.

For an example of another exercise of ##lim_{x\rightarrow -2}## we put x in the region ##(-2-\epsilon, -2+\epsilon)## for any small positive number ##\epsilon##, which is not in your {x| 3.236<x} but is in {x|x<-1.236}.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
anuttarasammyak said:
In the process of ##lim_{x\rightarrow 4}## we put x in the region ##(4-\epsilon, 4+\epsilon)## for any small positive number ##\epsilon##, which is in your {x| 3.236<x} but not in {x|x<-1.236}.

For an example of another exercise of ##lim_{x\rightarrow -2}## we put x in the region ##(-2-\epsilon, -2+\epsilon)## for any small positive number ##\epsilon##, which is not in your {x| 3.236<x} but is in {x|x<-1.236}.
Thank you for your reply @anuttarasammyak !

Sorry, I have not really done by epsilon-delta definition of a limit.

Many thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
Homework Statement: Please see below
Relevant Equations: Please see below

For this problem,
View attachment 324502
View attachment 324503
The solution is,
View attachment 324504
However, I tried to solve this problem using my Graphics Calculator instead of completing the square. I got the zeros of ##x^2 - 2x - 4## to be ##x_1 = 3.236## and ##x_2 = -1.236##

Therefore ##x_1 ≥ 3.236## and ##x_2 ≥ -1.236##

Since ##x_1 > x_2## then,

Therefore ## (x | x ≥ -1.236 ) ## which is ##~(x | x ≥ 1 - \sqrt{5} )~## (sorry curly brackets were not working), however, my domain restriction excludes some other values shown in the solution. Dose anybody please know a way using my method to get those values?

Many thanks!

For P(x) = ax^2 + bx + c:

If P has only a single real root, or no real roots:
  • If a &gt; 0 then P(x) \geq 0 everywhere.
  • If a &lt; 0 then P(x) \geq 0 only at the real root (if any).
If P has two distinct real roots r_1 &lt; r_2:
  • If a &gt; 0 then P(x) \geq 0 for x \leq r_1 or x \geq r_2 ("outside the roots").
  • If a &lt; 0 then P(x) \geq 0 for r_1 \leq x \leq r_2 ("between the roots").

All of these results follow from the facts that P(x) is positive for all sufficiently large |x| if a &gt; 0 and negative for all sufficiently large |x| if a &lt; 0 and that a polynomial only changes sign at a real root of odd multiplicity.

Alternatively, by completing the square you can reduce this to either |x - p| \leq q or |x - p| \geq q. The first has the interpretation that x is at most q units away from p, ie. p - q \leq x \leq p + q. The second has the interpretation that x is at least q units away from p, ie. x \leq p -q or x \geq p + q.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes member 731016
This seems a case of using continuity implies sequential continuity. ( Though the converse is false).
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
937
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K