Difference between revisions of "Limit of a Function(Definition): Introduction to ε-δ Arguments"
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
When most students initially confront the definition above, they are | When most students initially confront the definition above, they are | ||
− | really confused. It helps to | + | really confused. It helps to "unravel" the absolute values a bit. |
For example, <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|f(x)-L|<\epsilon</math> is really the same thing as | For example, <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|f(x)-L|<\epsilon</math> is really the same thing as | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
On its own, this would mean <math style="vertical-align: 0px">x</math> lies in the <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\delta</math>-neighborhood | On its own, this would mean <math style="vertical-align: 0px">x</math> lies in the <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\delta</math>-neighborhood | ||
centered at <math style="vertical-align: 0px">c</math>, which is the interval <math style="vertical-align: -5px">(c-\delta,c+\delta)</math>. But | centered at <math style="vertical-align: 0px">c</math>, which is the interval <math style="vertical-align: -5px">(c-\delta,c+\delta)</math>. But | ||
− | what about the other requirement, that <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|</math>? This means we ignore | + | what about the other requirement, that <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|</math> ? This means we ignore |
what happens at <math style="vertical-align: 0px">c</math>. | what happens at <math style="vertical-align: 0px">c</math>. | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
This definition can possibly be better understood through a short | This definition can possibly be better understood through a short | ||
video (best viewed fullscreen). | video (best viewed fullscreen). | ||
+ | <br><br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div style="text-align:center">'''''< Does not work on Internet Explorer >'''''</div> | ||
− | |||
<center><HTML5video width="640" height="420" autoplay="false">LimitDef</HTML5video></center> | <center><HTML5video width="640" height="420" autoplay="false">LimitDef</HTML5video></center> | ||
− | + | ||
+ | <br> | ||
== Proof Approach == | == Proof Approach == | ||
Line 64: | Line 67: | ||
''Solution.'' Looking at the statement we need to prove, we have <math style="vertical-align: -5px">f(x)=10,\ L=10</math> | ''Solution.'' Looking at the statement we need to prove, we have <math style="vertical-align: -5px">f(x)=10,\ L=10</math> | ||
− |  and <math style="vertical-align: | + |  and <math style="vertical-align: -1px">c=1</math>. Since <math style="vertical-align: -5px">f(x)=10</math> for all <math style="vertical-align:0px">x</math>, we know that for any <math style="vertical-align: -4px">x,</math> |
− | any <math style="vertical-align: | ||
::<math>|f(x)-L|\,=\,|10-10|\,=\,0\,<\epsilon</math> | ::<math>|f(x)-L|\,=\,|10-10|\,=\,0\,<\epsilon</math> | ||
as <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon</math> must be strictly positive. This means any <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\delta</math> | as <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon</math> must be strictly positive. This means any <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\delta</math> | ||
− | will work. To write it out, you would proceed as follows: | + | will work. To write it out formally, you would proceed as follows: |
'''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -1px">\delta=1</math>. Then, | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -1px">\delta=1</math>. Then, | ||
− | whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-1|<\delta=1</math>, we have | + | whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta=1</math>, we have |
::<math>|f(x)-L|\ =\ |10-10|\ =\ 0\ <\ \epsilon.</math> | ::<math>|f(x)-L|\ =\ |10-10|\ =\ 0\ <\ \epsilon.</math> | ||
Line 114: | Line 116: | ||
'''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -5px">\delta<\epsilon/2</math>. | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -5px">\delta<\epsilon/2</math>. | ||
− | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-3|<\delta<\epsilon/2</math>, we have | + | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|=|x-3|<\delta<\epsilon/2</math>, we have |
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 163: | Line 165: | ||
This certainly describes <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-1|</math> in terms of <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon</math>, but there's | This certainly describes <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-1|</math> in terms of <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon</math>, but there's | ||
also an <math style="vertical-align: 0px">x</math> on the right hand side! This requires us to pick an "initial" | also an <math style="vertical-align: 0px">x</math> on the right hand side! This requires us to pick an "initial" | ||
− | <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\delta</math>. Let's choose <math style="vertical-align: -1px">\delta=1</math>. Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta=1</math>, | + | <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\delta</math>. Let's choose <math style="vertical-align: -1px">\delta=1</math>. Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta=1</math>, |
we have | we have | ||
Line 189: | Line 191: | ||
'''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -5px">\delta=\min\{1,\epsilon/3\}</math>. | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -5px">\delta=\min\{1,\epsilon/3\}</math>. | ||
− | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta</math>, | + | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta</math>, |
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 249: | Line 251: | ||
'''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -16px">\delta=\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\epsilon}{15}\right\}</math>. | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -16px">\delta=\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\epsilon}{15}\right\}</math>. | ||
− | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-2|<\delta</math>, | + | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|=|x-2|<\delta</math>, |
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 308: | Line 310: | ||
'''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -16px">\delta=\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\epsilon}{7}\right\}</math>. | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -16px">\delta=\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\epsilon}{7}\right\}</math>. | ||
− | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-2|<\delta,</math> | + | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">0<|x-c|=|x-2|<\delta,</math> |
::<math>\begin{array}{ccrcrclccccl} | ::<math>\begin{array}{ccrcrclccccl} | ||
Line 335: | Line 337: | ||
''Solution.'' We have <math style="vertical-align: -5px">f(x)=\sqrt{x},\ L=1</math>  and <math style="vertical-align: -1px">c=1</math>. We start | ''Solution.'' We have <math style="vertical-align: -5px">f(x)=\sqrt{x},\ L=1</math>  and <math style="vertical-align: -1px">c=1</math>. We start | ||
our scratchwork as usual, assuming <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|f(x)-L|<\epsilon</math>. Then we have | our scratchwork as usual, assuming <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|f(x)-L|<\epsilon</math>. Then we have | ||
− | <br> | + | <br><br> |
::<math>\begin{array}{cccrcl} | ::<math>\begin{array}{cccrcl} | ||
Line 366: | Line 368: | ||
and we can write the proof. | and we can write the proof. | ||
− | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math> be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -5px">\delta=\min\left\{ 1,\epsilon\right\}</math>. | + | '''Proof.''' Let <math style="vertical-align: 0px">\epsilon>0</math>  be given. Choose <math style="vertical-align: -5px">\delta=\min\left\{ 1,\epsilon\right\}</math>. |
Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta</math>, | Then, whenever <math style="vertical-align: -5px">|x-c|=|x-1|<\delta</math>, | ||
Line 378: | Line 380: | ||
\Rightarrow & & & \left|\sqrt{x}+1\right|\cdot\left|\sqrt{x}-1\right| & < & \epsilon\\ | \Rightarrow & & & \left|\sqrt{x}+1\right|\cdot\left|\sqrt{x}-1\right| & < & \epsilon\\ | ||
\\ | \\ | ||
− | \Rightarrow & & & \left|\sqrt{x}-1\right| & < & \frac{\epsilon}{\left|\sqrt{x}+1\right|} & < & \epsilon, | + | \Rightarrow & & & \left|\sqrt{x}-1\right| & < & \displaystyle{\frac{\epsilon}{\left|\sqrt{x}+1\right|}} & < & \epsilon, |
\end{array}</math> | \end{array}</math> | ||
<br> | <br> |
Latest revision as of 15:09, 27 June 2017
Formal Definition
We say is the limit of at if, for any , there exists a such that whenever ,
An Explanation
When most students initially confront the definition above, they are really confused. It helps to "unravel" the absolute values a bit. For example, is really the same thing as
If we then add to each term, we arrive at
In other words, we are trying to restrict to the -neighborhood centered at , which is the interval . Similarly, we can rewrite to become
On its own, this would mean lies in the -neighborhood centered at , which is the interval . But what about the other requirement, that ? This means we ignore what happens at .
This neighborhood - the interval , minus the point - is known as a punctured neighborhood.
This definition can possibly be better understood through a short
video (best viewed fullscreen).
Proof Approach
The goal in these proofs is always the same: we need to find a , which will usually be expressed in terms of an arbitrary . For example, we might have to choose a , or a , or even a . But in each case, we usually build our proof backwards in what we can refer to as scratchwork.
Scratchwork begins by assuming our desired result, that
From here, we do whatever it takes (usually factoring) to change into . Once we have a statement of the form
this allows us to pick a that will work. We then just reverse the chain of equalities in our scratchwork to construct the proof. It's easier to see in a few examples.
Examples with Linear Functions
Problem 1. Using the definition of a limit, show that .
Solution. Looking at the statement we need to prove, we have and . Since for all , we know that for any
as must be strictly positive. This means any will work. To write it out formally, you would proceed as follows:
Proof. Let be given. Choose . Then, whenever , we have
A few quick notes about these types of proofs:
- Every one will begin with "let be given." That's because most of the time, our will be tied to the .
- We conclude the proof with a box/square, indicating we're done.
Problem 2. Using the definition of a limit, show that .
Solution. In this case, we have and . We again begin with scratchwork, and assume our goal. If we knew that , then we would work to get an expression that has . It goes like this:
This gives us our . We will choose a .
But that was all scratchwork, and the formal writeup looks like a bit different:
Proof. Let be given. Choose . Then, whenever , we have
as required.
It should be mentioned that in cases where , and , we will get that every time.
Examples with Quadratic Functions
Problem 3. Using the definition of a limit, show that .
Solution. Here, we have and . We again begin with scratchwork. Suppose . We then solve for to find
This certainly describes in terms of , but there's also an on the right hand side! This requires us to pick an "initial" . Let's choose . Then, whenever , we have
in the manner explained in An Explanation. More importantly, by adding two to the inequality we have
Dividing by this inequality (which reverses its direction), we have
This means that for any satisfying , we know that . Thus, we can choose a , and the proof should work. There's a small problem, though - we already chose a . The way around this is to use the minimum function:
When we write , it means to take whichever is the least of both and .
Now, our proof can be written.
Proof. Let be given. Choose . Then, whenever ,
as required.
Problem 4. Using the definition of a limit, show that .
Solution. This time, and . We follow the same pattern, doing the scratchwork first. Assume . Then
Based on the previous problem, let's choose an initial . Then we have
Now adding 4 to the inequality, we have
Dividing by this inequality, we have
So we can choose Then the proof works.
Proof. Let be given. Choose . Then, whenever ,
as required.
Problem 5. Using the definition of a limit, show that .
Solution. Here, we have and . We again begin with scratchwork, assuming . Then
Now, we again assume , so
and adding seven to the inequality,
Again, dividing by we have
for all satisfying We can now write the proof.
Proof. Let be given. Choose . Then, whenever
as required.
Other Examples
Problem 6. Using the definition of a limit, show that .
Solution. We have and . We start
our scratchwork as usual, assuming . Then we have
Similar to the quadratic examples, we can set an initial Then
and adding one to each term we find
This, in turn, means that
Multiplying the inequality by , we have
for all satisfying . This gives us our , and we can write the proof.
Proof. Let be given. Choose . Then, whenever ,
as required. Notice that we used both of the inequalities involving and to complete the proof.