|
So I'm in a moment of desperation; I have an assignemnt due next week, but I won't have internet access to hand it in for the next 10 days. so I had to start off my wondrous blog with a math question. I was thinking about using a triangle inequality proof, but I have no clue where to start.
The assignment I'm currently working on has to deal with delta-epsilon proofs of limits. The question is to prove that
If the limit of f(x) as x -> c exists and
limit of [f(x) + g(x)] as x -> c does not exist
then limit of g(x) as x-> c does not exist.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Use the linearity of the limit laws + Show Spoiler +let the limit of f(x) as x->c = L the limit of [f(x) + g(x)] as x->c does not exist Assume that the limit of g(x) as x->c = M Then lim(f) + lim(g) = L+M which belongs to the reals (or complex, depends on which field you are working on) By the additive limit law lim (f(x)+g(x)) = lim(f)+lim(g) => lim(f)+lim(g) does not exist but lim(f)+lim(g) = L+M which does exist ... (insert contradiction symbol here) Hence, the limit of g cannot exist if lim(f+g) does not exist
|
I am assuming that as this is a proof on the eps-delta definition of the limit, that you'll want a proof using that.
+ Show Spoiler + proof by contradiction:
say that the limit of g(x) as x -> c did exist
assumptions: the limit of f(x) as x -> c exists limit of [f(x) + g(x)] as x -> c does not exist
Let eps > 0, the hypothetical limit of g(x) as x -> c as L and the limit of f(x) as x-> c as W.
then there for every epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0 such that if | x - c | < delta then | g(x) - L | < eps/2.
and
for every epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0 such that if | x - c | < delta then | f(x) - W | < eps/2.
But we know from the triangle inequality that | f(x) - W + g(x) - L | <= | f(x) - W | + | g(x) - L| < eps and so, | [ f(x) + g(x) ] - [ W + L ] | < eps
but then this implies that:
for every epsilon > 0, there exists a delta > 0 such that if | x - c | < delta then | f(x) + g(x) - (W + L) | < eps, or that the limit of f(x) + g(x) is W+L, which is a contradiction from our assumptions.
+ Show Spoiler +really, really shitty notation and poor proof-writing skills. I blame the summer vacation for doing that, not to mention that I never really learn how to write proofs well. Hell, for all I know I missed something big. But that's a quick outline of my proof.
|
Of course this question is essentially the same as the law Plexa describes (it's a contrapositive).
I don't know if you're allowed to assume the law that lim(x-->c) f = M and lim(x-->c) g = N implies lim(x-->c) (f+g) = M+N.
If not, the simple proof runs as follows:
Let epsilon>0 be arbitrary. Select some delta_1 such that |f(x)-M|<epsilon/2 when |x-c|<delta_1. Select some delta_2 such that |g(x)-N|<epsilon/2 when |x-c|<delta_2. Now let delta be the minimum of delta_1 and delta_2.
When |x-c|<delta we have that |f(x)+g(x)-(M+N)| <= |f(x)-M|+|g(x)-N|<2*(epsilon/2)=epsilon.
EDIT: I see goldrush posted before me ^^, though he glosses over the important point that you must choose delta=min(delta_1,delta_2)
|
Muirhead is right. Whoops!
|
I think using indirect proof is much easier.
We first assume that we know linearity of limits. If we do not know that, consult any reasonable analysis textbook for a proof.
Now suppose limit of g(x) as x-> c exists; then since the limit of f(x) as x -> c exists, linearity gives that limit of [f(x) + g(x)] as x -> c exists, which is a contradiction. QED
|
TL COMMANDMENTS
"This includes non-StarCraft related voting campaigns (vote for my friend in this contest!) or blatant threads asking for homework advice (how do I solve this equation??). TeamLiquid is not your personal army. It is not a substitute for Google or a tool for lazy students. We're here to discuss things and have fun, not for your own selfish needs.
You've been warned." -Manifesto
Oh yeah that little thing that keeps the site running smoothly, and by breaking one of these rules im assuming you didnt know about it which breaks another rule by being ignorant of the TL rules. :7
|
Eh... I think it's cruel to equate asking for anlaysis help with asking for high school algebra help. The way I see it we're all here to help each other out here, and it's not easy to find people who know even moderately advanced math.
|
Thanks plexa, goldrush and muirhead for the rather detailed responses. Yea it is pretty hard to get help this advanced from regular sites like yahoo answers, or just googling answers. TL is a genius.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2009 09:59 GreEny K wrote:TL COMMANDMENTS "This includes non-StarCraft related voting campaigns (vote for my friend in this contest!) or blatant threads asking for homework advice (how do I solve this equation??). TeamLiquid is not your personal army. It is not a substitute for Google or a tool for lazy students. We're here to discuss things and have fun, not for your own selfish needs. You've been warned." -Manifesto Oh yeah that little thing that keeps the site running smoothly, and by breaking one of these rules im assuming you didnt know about it which breaks another rule by being ignorant of the TL rules. :7 What would you suggest hari kari?
|
On July 19 2009 09:59 GreEny K wrote:TL COMMANDMENTS "This includes non-StarCraft related voting campaigns (vote for my friend in this contest!) or blatant threads asking for homework advice (how do I solve this equation??). TeamLiquid is not your personal army. It is not a substitute for Google or a tool for lazy students. We're here to discuss things and have fun, not for your own selfish needs. You've been warned." -Manifesto Oh yeah that little thing that keeps the site running smoothly, and by breaking one of these rules im assuming you didnt know about it which breaks another rule by being ignorant of the TL rules. :7
Yet Plexa answered it and he's tl.net staff....
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
|
Obviously the purpose of this problem is helping u be familair with delta-epsilon system. Murihead's answer is what they expected. Plexa did nothing but cited another law which is based on this kind of derivation.
The situation is just like, the problem is asking u to prove Pythagoras's Theorem, but u cited a more advanced Law of cosines and said, look, how easy it is! c^2=a^2+b^2-2abcos(90)=a^2+b^2!But u did NOT touch the core of problem at all. Never. Do you know why the law of cosines is like that?
Math is teaching u how to think independently but not remembering laws.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Math is teaching you to thinking logically the any of the limit laws can easily be derived using anything from the sequential criterion for limits to straight up using epsilon-delta machinery.
With that said, the arguments employed are exactly the same in both cases - except one has the complete solution and the other has the sketch solution. The latter, imo, is better for a thread like this. The reason being is that it gives the op the chance to complete the proof the e-d methods since from the outset it looked like he was confused about how to approach the problem.
Nevertheless its a rather trivial problem in analysis any way you look at it
|
On July 19 2009 10:38 moriya wrote: Obviously the purpose of this problem is helping u be familair with delta-epsilon system. Murihead's answer is what they expected. Plexa did nothing but cited another law which is based on this kind of derivation.
The situation is just like, the problem is asking u to prove Pythagoras's Theorem, but u cited a more advanced Law of cosines and said, look, how easy it is! c^2=a^2+b^2-2abcos(90)=a^2+b^2!But u did NOT touch the core of problem at all. Never. Do you know why the law of cosines is like that?
Math is teaching u how to think independently but not remembering laws. As long as you know how the limit algebra works the answer is pretty much the same. I mean the "correct" answer from your point of view is the same as the proof of limit addition applied to this case. As long as you remember the law and where it came from it doesnt matter how you prove something. Math is not how to think independantly, be cautious.
|
ROFL.
Please prove the lim(f/g)=lim(f)/lim(g) using ur logic way but not resorting to any laws.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 19 2009 11:17 moriya wrote: ROFL.
Please prove the lim(f/g)=lim(f)/lim(g) using ur logic way but not resorting to any laws. The problem here is that what you have written is not true... If lim(g) =/= 0 then lim(f/g)=lim(f)/lim(g) be careful!!
|
Anyone with basic math knowledge can judge the intelligence level of plexa and murihead's solution. But some one try to say they are "smart" and even warn others. It's really annoying.
|
Certainly i am aware of that "trivial" thing, using ur word, just lazy to input them. But u r so picky, so i add them, please prove that when lim(g)!=0.
On July 19 2009 11:28 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2009 11:17 moriya wrote: ROFL.
Please prove the lim(f/g)=lim(f)/lim(g) using ur logic way but not resorting to any laws. The problem here is that what you have written is not true... If lim(g) =/= 0 then lim(f/g)=lim(f)/lim(g) be careful!!
|
And for the OP, I suggest u also put plexa's proof to ur homework and see what happened.
|
On July 19 2009 11:28 moriya wrote: Anyone with basic math knowledge can judge the intelligence level of plexa and murihead's solution. But some one try to say they are "smart" and even warn others. It's really annoying. Are you trolling? I just showed you that both are the same.
|
|
|
|