• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:09
CEST 18:09
KST 01:09
  • 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
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed17Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Heaven's Balance Suggestions (roast me) The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Soulkey Muta Micro Map? BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
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
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 760 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
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL Team League: PTB vs RR
Freeedom8
Liquipedia
Epic.LAN
12:00
Epic.LAN 45 Playoffs Stage
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .337
RotterdaM 320
Vindicta 46
StarCraft: Brood War
Barracks 1478
Larva 1001
Mini 705
Soma 543
Hyuk 418
actioN 362
firebathero 360
TY 315
Hyun 93
Aegong 44
[ Show more ]
Terrorterran 15
GoRush 13
SilentControl 9
Dota 2
Gorgc11822
singsing3190
qojqva1336
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
sgares1172
Stewie2K809
fl0m309
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor504
Other Games
Beastyqt312
Lowko210
KnowMe108
ArmadaUGS77
Trikslyr64
Rex15
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2601
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 58
• Adnapsc2 22
• LUISG 15
• Legendk 12
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Nemesis3667
• Jankos1536
Upcoming Events
CSO Contender
51m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
17h 51m
Online Event
23h 51m
Esports World Cup
2 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
Championship of Russia 2025
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
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 © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.