• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 01:01
CET 07:01
KST 15:01
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Clem wins HomeStory Cup 280HomeStory Cup 28 - Info & Preview12Rongyi Cup S3 - Preview & Info3herO wins SC2 All-Star Invitational14SC2 All-Star Invitational: Tournament Preview5
Community News
Weekly Cups (Jan 26-Feb 1): herO, Clem, ByuN, Classic win2RSL Season 4 announced for March-April7Weekly Cups (Jan 19-25): Bunny, Trigger, MaxPax win3Weekly Cups (Jan 12-18): herO, MaxPax, Solar win0BSL Season 2025 - Full Overview and Conclusion8
StarCraft 2
General
Clem wins HomeStory Cup 28 Stellar Fest "01" Jersey Charity Auction StarCraft 2 Not at the Esports World Cup 2026 Weekly Cups (Jan 26-Feb 1): herO, Clem, ByuN, Classic win HomeStory Cup 28 - Info & Preview
Tourneys
HomeStory Cup 28 RSL Season 4 announced for March-April PIG STY FESTIVAL 7.0! (19 Feb - 1 Mar) StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) $21,000 Rongyi Cup Season 3 announced (Jan 22-Feb 7)
Strategy
Custom Maps
[A] Starcraft Sound Mod
External Content
Mutation # 511 Temple of Rebirth The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 510 Safety Violation Mutation # 509 Doomsday Report
Brood War
General
BSL Season 21 - Complete Results Bleak Future After Failed ProGaming Career [ASL21] Potential Map Candidates Can someone share very abbreviated BW cliffnotes? BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Azhi's Colosseum - Season 2 Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL21] Non-Korean Championship - Starts Jan 10
Strategy
Zealot bombing is no longer popular? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Current Meta Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread Path of Exile Mobile Legends: Bang Bang Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Play, Watch, Drink: Esports …
TrAiDoS
My 2025 Magic: The Gathering…
DARKING
Life Update and thoughts.
FuDDx
How do archons sleep?
8882
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1424 users

Calculus help

Blogs > Faronel
Post a Reply
Normal
Faronel
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States658 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-18 23:36:17
July 18 2009 23:32 GMT
#1
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.



C'est la vie...
Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-18 23:53:18
July 18 2009 23:46 GMT
#2
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
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
goldrush
Profile Blog Joined June 2004
Canada709 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 00:07:40
July 19 2009 00:02 GMT
#3
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.


Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 00:07:39
July 19 2009 00:06 GMT
#4
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)
starleague.mit.edu
goldrush
Profile Blog Joined June 2004
Canada709 Posts
July 19 2009 00:08 GMT
#5
Muirhead is right. Whoops!
illu
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada2531 Posts
July 19 2009 00:29 GMT
#6
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
:]
GreEny K
Profile Joined February 2008
Germany7312 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 01:00:06
July 19 2009 00:59 GMT
#7
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
Why would you ever choose failure, when success is an option.
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 01:05:42
July 19 2009 01:03 GMT
#8
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.
starleague.mit.edu
Faronel
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States658 Posts
July 19 2009 01:10 GMT
#9
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?
C'est la vie...
ilistis
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
United States828 Posts
July 19 2009 01:20 GMT
#10
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....
"The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones."-William Faulkner *_*_*_Kolll FAN_*_*_*
Kennigit *
Profile Blog Joined October 2006
Canada19447 Posts
July 19 2009 01:22 GMT
#11
PARADOX!
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 01:38 GMT
#12
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.
Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 02:20:00
July 19 2009 02:08 GMT
#13
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
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
Malongo
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Chile3472 Posts
July 19 2009 02:16 GMT
#14
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.
Help me! im still improving my English. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. M. G.
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:17 GMT
#15
ROFL.

Please prove the lim(f/g)=lim(f)/lim(g) using ur logic way but not resorting to any laws.
Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
July 19 2009 02:28 GMT
#16
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!!
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:28 GMT
#17
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.
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:30 GMT
#18
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!!

moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:33 GMT
#19
And for the OP, I suggest u also put plexa's proof to ur homework and see what happened.
Malongo
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Chile3472 Posts
July 19 2009 02:35 GMT
#20
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.
Help me! im still improving my English. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. M. G.
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:37 GMT
#21
I need not u to show me that "both are the same".
And to me, their intelligence level is not the same.
Malongo
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Chile3472 Posts
July 19 2009 02:46 GMT
#22
On July 19 2009 11:37 moriya wrote:
I need not u to show me that "both are the same".
And to me, their intelligence level is not the same.

Good luck in your life with epsilon/delta smart boy.
Help me! im still improving my English. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. M. G.
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:48 GMT
#23
Did u notice the OP said "The assignment I'm currently working on has to deal with delta-epsilon proofs of limits."? Your sketch solution is not a solution but kinda reiterate of the problem.
On July 19 2009 11:08 Plexa wrote:
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

moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 02:50 GMT
#24
Good luck, u can even find they are the same and no one else can!
Have a brilliant future! Hope u can contribute sth new to the society!
On July 19 2009 11:46 Malongo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 19 2009 11:37 moriya wrote:
I need not u to show me that "both are the same".
And to me, their intelligence level is not the same.

Good luck in your life with epsilon/delta smart boy.

Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 03:15:36
July 19 2009 03:14 GMT
#25
On July 19 2009 11:30 moriya wrote:
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.
Show nested quote +
On July 19 2009 11:28 Plexa wrote:
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!!


Uh, if you leave out that part of the hypothesis then your statement is not true... it is certainly not trivial

+ Show Spoiler +
Let epsilon = e > 0
There exists an L and a delta = d1 such that if 0 < | x - c | < d1 then | f(x) - L | < e where L belongs to the reals.
And there exists an M and a delta = d2 such that if 0 < | x - c | < d2 then | g(x) - M | < e where M belongs to the reals, M =/= 0.

Consider f(x)/g(x). Choose d = min{d1, d2} (then clearly f converges to L and g converges to M for |x - c | < d). Assume 0 < | x - c | < d, define h(x) = 1/g(x) => lim(h(x)) = 1/M = m (since M =/= 0, the proof is easy, let me know if you want it). So, |f(x)*h(x) - Lm| = |(f(x)*h(x)-f(x)*m) + (f(x)*m - L*m)| =< |f(x)|*|(h(x) - m)|+|m|*|(f(x) - L)|. Since both h(x) and f(x) have a limit, they are bounded on the delta neighborhood of c. Hence, there exists and number Z such that |f(x)|*|(h(x) - m)|+|m|*|(f(x) - L)| <= Z*|h(x) - m| + Z*|f(x) - L|. Since e arbitrary, we can easily find conditions for which for 0 < | x - c | < d => |f(x) - L| < e/(2*Z) and |h(x) - m| < e/(2*Z). So we arrive at the result;
Z*|h(x) - m| + Z*|f(x) - L| =< Z*e/(2*Z) + Z*e/(2*Z) = e.
And we are done

Messy, but it holds (I hate writing proofs out on the computer)
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
July 19 2009 03:18 GMT
#26
Lolol Plexa can we put LaTeX support on teamliquid
starleague.mit.edu
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 03:53:10
July 19 2009 03:20 GMT
#27
OK, i agree i shouldnot be so lazy when discussing a math problem. Maybe years of engineering student drag me too far away lol.

But ur sketch solution implies u think the e-d part is trivial, while i think they are the core of the problem and ur statement is trivial.

I just want to show that we have to touch the core of problem, sooner or later. If u cannot prove that for f/g, it means u need practice with e-d system more. If ur major is math, I would like to say sorry to you...
Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 03:22:55
July 19 2009 03:21 GMT
#28
On July 19 2009 12:18 Muirhead wrote:
Lolol Plexa can we put LaTeX support on teamliquid

Would be very useful for these kinds of threads T_T
On July 19 2009 12:20 moriya wrote:
OK, i agree i shouldnot be so lazy when discussing a math problem. Maybe years of engineer student drag me too fay away lol.

But ur sketch solution implies u think the e-d part is trivial, while i think they are the core of the problem and ur statement is trivial.

I just want to show that we have to touch the core of problem, sooner or later. If u cannot prove that for f/g, it means u need practice with e-d system more. If ur major is math, I would like to say sorry to you...

From the OP
I was thinking about using a triangle inequality proof, but I have no clue where to start.

Do you think its better to spell out the entire proof? Or to show him the path he should follow to arrive at the solution?
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
Faronel
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States658 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 03:26:40
July 19 2009 03:26 GMT
#29
Lol, kinda funny. Because I have to write all my solutions/proofs in LaTeX. I thought my teacher was kidding when he said that LaTeX was the way to go for almost all math/science papers
C'est la vie...
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
July 19 2009 03:29 GMT
#30
not bad, although i see u spend a lot on proving lim(f*g)=limf*limg, while just say lim(1/g)=1/limg
is easy. What i feel is lim1/g=1/limg is the core of this problem here. I use this problem to test so I know the method, lol

funny that we always have different ideas about which is core and which is trivial...


On July 19 2009 12:14 Plexa wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 19 2009 11:30 moriya wrote:
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:
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!!


Uh, if you leave out that part of the hypothesis then your statement is not true... it is certainly not trivial

+ Show Spoiler +
Let epsilon = e > 0
There exists an L and a delta = d1 such that if 0 < | x - c | < d1 then | f(x) - L | < e where L belongs to the reals.
And there exists an M and a delta = d2 such that if 0 < | x - c | < d2 then | g(x) - M | < e where M belongs to the reals, M =/= 0.

Consider f(x)/g(x). Choose d = min{d1, d2} (then clearly f converges to L and g converges to M for |x - c | < d). Assume 0 < | x - c | < d, define h(x) = 1/g(x) => lim(h(x)) = 1/M = m (since M =/= 0, the proof is easy, let me know if you want it). So, |f(x)*h(x) - Lm| = |(f(x)*h(x)-f(x)*m) + (f(x)*m - L*m)| =< |f(x)|*|(h(x) - m)|+|m|*|(f(x) - L)|. Since both h(x) and f(x) have a limit, they are bounded on the delta neighborhood of c. Hence, there exists and number Z such that |f(x)|*|(h(x) - m)|+|m|*|(f(x) - L)| <= Z*|h(x) - m| + Z*|f(x) - L|. Since e arbitrary, we can easily find conditions for which for 0 < | x - c | < d => |f(x) - L| < e/(2*Z) and |h(x) - m| < e/(2*Z). So we arrive at the result;
Z*|h(x) - m| + Z*|f(x) - L| =< Z*e/(2*Z) + Z*e/(2*Z) = e.
And we are done

Messy, but it holds (I hate writing proofs out on the computer)

Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
July 19 2009 03:35 GMT
#31
On July 19 2009 12:29 moriya wrote:
not bad, although i see u spend a lot on proving lim(f*g)=limf*limg, while just say lim(1/g)=1/limg
is easy. What i feel is lim1/g=1/limg is the core of this problem here. I use this problem to test so I know the method, lol

funny that we always have different ideas about which is core and which is trivial...


Show nested quote +
On July 19 2009 12:14 Plexa wrote:
On July 19 2009 11:30 moriya wrote:
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:
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!!


Uh, if you leave out that part of the hypothesis then your statement is not true... it is certainly not trivial

+ Show Spoiler +
Let epsilon = e > 0
There exists an L and a delta = d1 such that if 0 < | x - c | < d1 then | f(x) - L | < e where L belongs to the reals.
And there exists an M and a delta = d2 such that if 0 < | x - c | < d2 then | g(x) - M | < e where M belongs to the reals, M =/= 0.

Consider f(x)/g(x). Choose d = min{d1, d2} (then clearly f converges to L and g converges to M for |x - c | < d). Assume 0 < | x - c | < d, define h(x) = 1/g(x) => lim(h(x)) = 1/M = m (since M =/= 0, the proof is easy, let me know if you want it). So, |f(x)*h(x) - Lm| = |(f(x)*h(x)-f(x)*m) + (f(x)*m - L*m)| =< |f(x)|*|(h(x) - m)|+|m|*|(f(x) - L)|. Since both h(x) and f(x) have a limit, they are bounded on the delta neighborhood of c. Hence, there exists and number Z such that |f(x)|*|(h(x) - m)|+|m|*|(f(x) - L)| <= Z*|h(x) - m| + Z*|f(x) - L|. Since e arbitrary, we can easily find conditions for which for 0 < | x - c | < d => |f(x) - L| < e/(2*Z) and |h(x) - m| < e/(2*Z). So we arrive at the result;
Z*|h(x) - m| + Z*|f(x) - L| =< Z*e/(2*Z) + Z*e/(2*Z) = e.
And we are done

Messy, but it holds (I hate writing proofs out on the computer)


If I were proving the problem I would have the lim(1/g) = (1/M) part as a lemma before the problem began. You're suggesting proving two things in the same proof, I prefer to break things into bite sized chunks for the most part. I dont see why you are trying to "size up" or "attack" my ability with maths though I assume anyone writing here is competent. It would be wise if you mannered up your responses from being passive aggressive to something more constructive if you wish to remain a poster here.
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
July 19 2009 03:45 GMT
#32
Hm Plexa just curious what is your maths background?

I've seen some surprisingly advanced PHD-level posters here, but I didn't expect even the moderators to be mathy ^^
starleague.mit.edu
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 03:57:47
July 19 2009 03:49 GMT
#33
Summary: I become so aggressive becoz i think some guy's solution is a typical BM in math proof. I make an analogy with Pythagoras's Theorem and laws of cosine, to show why it is a BM solution. To be more "constructive", I propose a problem f/g and lol some one begin to work on it.

BTW, It is a pity that we don't discuss that analogy. I want to know how u guys feel of that.
Plexa
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 03:53:45
July 19 2009 03:51 GMT
#34
On July 19 2009 12:45 Muirhead wrote:
Hm Plexa just curious what is your maths background?

I've seen some surprisingly advanced PHD-level posters here, but I didn't expect even the moderators to be mathy ^^
I'm in my last year for my bsc in maths. Although next semester ill be taking honors papers to fill it up because i've done all the third year ones =/
On July 19 2009 12:49 moriya wrote:
Summary: I become so aggressive becoz i think some guy's solution is a typical BM in math proof. I make an analogy with and Pythagoras's Theorem and laws of cosine, to show why it is a BM solution. To be more "constructive", I propose a problem f/g and lol some one begin to work on it.

BTW, It is a pity that we don't discuss that analogy. I want to know how u guys feel of that.

mmm I disagree that the analogy is particularly relevant on the grounds that the argument in proving pythagoras is very different from setting theta = pi/2 in the cosine law, unlike the case we had here.
Administrator~ Spirit will set you free ~
Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
July 19 2009 03:56 GMT
#35
Haha moriya I noticed in a bunch of threads that you get angry pretty easily, but I can't be too upset with a guy who praises my solution ^^. It's nice to see posters like yourself consistently turn up in these mathy threads!

As for your analogy, I think it's not quite the same thing. Plexa just restated the problem as its contrapositive and claimed that contrapositive to be well-known (which it is). Using the Law of Cosines to prove the Pythagorean Theorem is bashing a problem with excessively powerful tools, but Plexa isn't doing that so much as simply saying that the problem is well-known.
starleague.mit.edu
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 04:12:01
July 19 2009 04:06 GMT
#36
I think the contrapositive of the problem is if f and g limit both exist, then f+g limits exist.
What plexa used is f+g limit =lim f+ lim g, which is stronger.
Just like using laws of cosine which is stronger to prove Pythagoras's Theorem.
and i didnot see e-d at all so I feel its kinda BM.

lol it is trivial and doesnot matter, sorry plexa. Maybe I get angry becoz i just get owned on USeast in some 3s4s game. ^_^



Muirhead
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States556 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 04:12:16
July 19 2009 04:11 GMT
#37
Oh sure I guess I just felt it isn't much stronger because you can't really show

if f and g limit both exist, then f+g limits exist

without showing

f+g limit =lim f+ lim g

unlike in the Pythagorean Theorem case, which you can prove nicely without using the Law of Cosines.
starleague.mit.edu
moriya
Profile Joined March 2009
United States54 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-07-19 04:52:20
July 19 2009 04:21 GMT
#38
Sure pythegorean theorem can be and should be proved by elementary method.

What I mean is that law of cosines is based on pythagorean theorem, just like lim(f+g)=limf+limg is based on lim(f+g) exist. You cannot use the former to prove latter. But on the other hand, u guys are correct, the situation is delicate here because when proving lim(f+g) exist u automatically obtained lim(f+g)=limf+limg.

lol i will go to see SPL playoff now. GL guys.
GreEny K
Profile Joined February 2008
Germany7312 Posts
July 19 2009 04:50 GMT
#39
On July 19 2009 10:03 Muirhead wrote:
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.


Im just saying, plus it doesnt matter what level of math the question is it could be 2+2= ??? and it would still go against the rules. Just saying.
Why would you ever choose failure, when success is an option.
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
Rongyi Cup S3 - Playoffs Day 2
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech131
StarCraft: Brood War
EffOrt 595
actioN 256
Leta 156
Shuttle 114
Hyuk 56
Pusan 31
GoRush 28
Icarus 16
Noble 15
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm142
febbydoto23
League of Legends
JimRising 765
C9.Mang0424
Counter-Strike
m0e_tv601
Foxcn208
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox971
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor122
Other Games
summit1g6926
tarik_tv2464
Livibee66
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH301
• practicex 39
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki22
• Diggity4
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1114
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
3h 59m
WardiTV Invitational
5h 59m
YoungYakov vs MaxPax
ByuN vs herO
SHIN vs Classic
Creator vs Cure
Replay Cast
17h 59m
RongYI Cup
2 days
herO vs Maru
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Wardi Open
4 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-02-04
HSC XXVIII
Underdog Cup #3

Ongoing

CSL 2025 WINTER (S19)
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
Acropolis #4 - TS4
Rongyi Cup S3
Nations Cup 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S1: W7
Escore Tournament S1: W8
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
RSL Revival: Season 4
LiuLi Cup: 2025 Grand Finals
FISSURE Playground #3
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League Season 23
ESL Pro League Season 23
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.