Using continuity to evaluate a limit of a composite function

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
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