What is the limit paradox of the function f(x) = x/{(x-1)2(x-3)}?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limit behavior of the function f(x) = x/{(x-1)²(x-3)} as x approaches a certain value a. Participants are exploring the paradox of obtaining contradictory results when attempting to prove that the limit approaches negative infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants analyze two cases for the limit as x approaches a from the left, questioning the validity of their proofs when they derive opposite results. They also discuss the necessity of specifying the value of a to properly evaluate the limit.

Discussion Status

Some participants have pointed out that the limit cannot be defined without knowing the specific value of a. There is acknowledgment of confusion regarding the continuity of the function and its implications for limit evaluation.

Contextual Notes

There is a recognition that the limit behavior may differ based on the value of a, particularly noting that the limit approaches negative infinity only when a equals 1. Participants are also considering the implications of continuity in other limit cases.

tanzl
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
I have a paradox here. Please tell me what is wrong.
I need to prove that [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]

1st case

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)<M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x<a ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] < P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
< [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) < M

Done.

2nd case (The opposite case)

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)>M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

As above,
0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x>a-[tex]\delta[/tex] ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] > P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
> [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) > M

Done.

I derive the both cases with the same arguments but obtain opposite result. What is wrong with my proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Haven't read yoru question but you would do \lim_{x \rightarrow a} to give you:

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a}[/tex]
 
tanzl said:
I have a paradox here. Please tell me what is wrong.
I need to prove that [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]

1st case

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)<M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x<a ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] < P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
< [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) < M

Done.

2nd case (The opposite case)

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)>M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

As above,
0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x>a-[tex]\delta[/tex] ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] > P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
> [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) > M

Done.

I derive the both cases with the same arguments but obtain opposite result. What is wrong with my proof?

There's a LOT wrong that 'proof'. It doesn't really prove anything. You can't even BEGIN to prove something about the limit of f(x) as x->a until you know what a is! What is it?
 
tanzl said:
I have a paradox here. Please tell me what is wrong.
I need to prove that [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]

1st case

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)<M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x<a ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] < P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
< [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) < M

Done.

2nd case (The opposite case)

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)>M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

As above,
0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x>a-[tex]\delta[/tex] ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] > P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
> [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) > M

Done.

I derive the both cases with the same arguments but obtain opposite result. What is wrong with my proof?
One problem you have is that you haven't said what a is!
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
is true only if a= 1. where did you use that?
 
You all are right. It is impossible to define the limit if a is not given.
I confuse this with the case [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = a^4[/itex],
where f(x) = x4.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=252170

I think it is correct in x4 case because it is continuous and the limit of it when x is approaching "a" is always equals to a4 whereas in this question, I can only define that when x is approaching a certain "a", the limit is -[tex]\infty[/tex] but generally when a is any numbers, the limit is not [tex]-\infty[/tex].

Please help me to check this so that I can make sure that what I am doing is correct.
Prove that [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1}f(x) = 1[/itex] , where [itex]f(x) = \frac{1}{x}[/itex].

For all \epsilon >0 , there exists \delta >0 , such that whenever 0<|x-1|<\delta , then [itex]|f(x)-1|<\epsilon[/itex].

|f(x)-1|
[itex]= |\frac{1}{x} - 1|[/itex]
[itex]= |\frac{1-x}{x}|[/itex]
[itex]=\frac{|1-x|}{|x|}[/itex]
[itex]=|1-x|*\frac{1}{x}[/itex]

By letting [itex]\delta = \delta_1[/itex] where [itex]\delta_1[/itex] is an arbitrary positive number such that [itex]\frac{1}{x} < M[/itex] , where M is an arbitrary positive number. (This is the part I am not very sure, my reasoning is there exists [itex]0<|x-1|<\delta_1/[/itex] such that I can get [itex]\frac{1}{|x|} < M[/itex], but how can I make sure that this assumption is always correct)

So, [itex]|f(x)-1| < \delta*M = \epsilon[/itex]
where [itex]\delta = min [ \delta_1 ,\frac{M}{\epsilon}][/itex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Y some of the LATEX is not displayed?
 
Because you didn't tell it to! You did not include the [ tex ] and [ / tex ] tags. Also do not use the HTML tags and in LaTex. use ^ and _ instead.
 
tanzl said:
You all are right. It is impossible to define the limit if a is not given.
I confuse this with the case [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = a^4[/itex],
where f(x) = x4.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=252170

I think it is correct in x4 case because it is continuous and the limit of it when x is approaching "a" is always equals to a4 whereas in this question, I can only define that when x is approaching a certain "a", the limit is -[tex]\infty[/tex] but generally when a is any numbers, the limit is not [tex]-\infty[/tex].

Please help me to check this so that I can make sure that what I am doing is correct.
Prove that [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1}f(x) = 1[/itex] , where [itex]f(x) = \frac{1}{x}[/itex].

For all \epsilon >0 , there exists \delta >0 , such that whenever 0<|x-1|<\delta , then [itex]|f(x)-1|<\epsilon[/itex].

|f(x)-1|
[itex]= |\frac{1}{x} - 1|[/itex]
[itex]= |\frac{1-x}{x}|[/itex]
[itex]=\frac{|1-x|}{|x|}[/itex]
[itex]=|1-x|*\frac{1}{x}[/itex]

By letting [itex]\delta = \delta_1[/itex] where [itex]\delta_1[/itex] is an arbitrary positive number such that [itex]\frac{1}{x} < M[/itex] , where M is an arbitrary positive number. (This is the part I am not very sure, my reasoning is there exists [itex]0<|x-1|<\delta_1/[/itex] such that I can get [itex]\frac{1}{|x|} < M[/itex], but how can I make sure that this assumption is always correct)

So, [itex]|f(x)-1| < \delta*M = \epsilon[/itex]
where [itex]\delta = min [ \delta_1 ,\frac{M}{\epsilon}][/itex]
You need to be a little more careful. If, say, 0< |x-1|< 1/2, then -1/2< x- 1< 1/2 so
1/2< x< 3/2. Now you can say that 1/x< 1/(1/2)= 2. |f(x)-1|< 2|1- x|.
 
Consider the function f(x) = x/{(x-1)2(x-3)}

If x has any value other than 1 or 3, the value of f(x) can be calculated by substituting the value of x in the formula. For example, if x=5, f(x) = f(5) = 5/(42*2) = 5/32. The limit of f(x), for x approaching 5, whether from above or from below, will also be 5/32, as f is a continuous function on any interval that does not include 1 or 3.

The only nontrivial limits are therefore those for x approaching 1 or 3 from above or from below, and those for x approaching plus or minus infinity (that is, x increasing or decreasing without bound).

First we should realize that f(x) = 0 if and only if x = 0.

For very large |x|, f(x) will be nearly equal to x/x3 = 1/x2, which approaches zero from above if x approaches plus or minus infinity. The same should be true for f(x).

For x approaching 1 from below (i.e. x<1 and x<3, but x>0) f(x) will have negative values.
For x approaching 1 from above (i.e. x>1 but x<3) f(x) will also have negative values.
For x approaching 3 from below (i.e. x<3, but x>1) f(x) will still have negative values.
For x approaching 3 from above (i.e. x>3 and x>1) f(x) will have positive values.

If |x-1| < epsilon, |f(x)| will be larger than 1/(3-1)*1/(epsilon)2.
If |x-3| < epsilon, |f(x)| will be larger than 1/(3-1)2*1/epsilon.
These absolute values will therefore increase without bounds when epsilon approaches zero.

Therefore f(x) approaches minus infinity if x approaches 1 from above or below, or 3 from below; and f(x) approaches plus infinity if x approaches 3 from above.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K