|
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.
|
I need not u to show me that "both are the same". And to me, their intelligence level is not the same.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
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)
|
Lolol Plexa can we put LaTeX support on teamliquid
|
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...
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
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?
|
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
|
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)
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
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.
|
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 ^^
|
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.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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. ^_^
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|