• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:45
CET 18:45
KST 02:45
  • 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
[ASL21] Ro24 Preview Pt1: New Chaos0Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - Presented by Monster Energy7ByuL: The Forgotten Master of ZvT30Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book19Clem wins HomeStory Cup 289
Community News
Weekly Cups (March 16-22): herO doubles, Cure surprises3Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool48Weekly Cups (March 9-15): herO, Clem, ByuN win42026 KungFu Cup Announcement6BGE Stara Zagora 2026 cancelled12
StarCraft 2
General
Potential Updates Coming to the SC2 CN Server What mix of new & old maps do you want in the next ladder pool? (SC2) Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool Weekly Cups (March 16-22): herO doubles, Cure surprises Weekly Cups (August 25-31): Clem's Last Straw?
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament World University TeamLeague (500$+) | Signups Open RSL Season 4 announced for March-April WardiTV Team League Season 10 KSL Week 87
Strategy
Custom Maps
[M] (2) Frigid Storage Publishing has been re-enabled! [Feb 24th 2026]
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 518 Radiation Zone Mutation # 517 Distant Threat Mutation # 516 Specter of Death
Brood War
General
RepMastered™: replay sharing and analyzer site mca64Launcher - New Version with StarCraft: Remast How much money terran looses from gas steal? ASL21 General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[ASL21] Ro24 Group C [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL21] Ro24 Group B 2026 Changsha Offline Cup
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
General RTS Discussion Thread Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Dawn of War IV
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion The Story of Wings Gaming
League of Legends
G2 just beat GenG in First stand
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
TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Cricket [SPORT] Formula 1 Discussion Tokyo Olympics 2021 Thread General nutrition recommendations
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Laptop capable of using Photoshop Lightroom?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Money Laundering In Video Ga…
TrAiDoS
Iranian anarchists: organize…
XenOsky
FS++
Kraekkling
Shocked by a laser…
Spydermine0240
Unintentional protectionism…
Uldridge
ASL S21 English Commentary…
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1735 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
Next event in 6h 15m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
LamboSC2 303
TKL 172
elazer 168
JuggernautJason62
MindelVK 38
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 24646
Calm 4349
Mini 974
EffOrt 571
Shuttle 280
ggaemo 277
firebathero 159
actioN 121
Rush 113
Leta 85
[ Show more ]
Mind 63
Mong 51
Aegong 34
IntoTheRainbow 14
Bale 10
ivOry 6
Dota 2
Gorgc8594
Counter-Strike
pashabiceps2005
kennyS1259
adren_tv104
oskar62
Other Games
Grubby1967
FrodaN1045
B2W.Neo809
ceh9533
DeMusliM350
RotterdaM136
KnowMe120
QueenE90
C9.Mang076
Rex24
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream32
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 10
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV827
• lizZardDota266
• Noizen64
League of Legends
• Nemesis2703
• TFBlade741
Other Games
• imaqtpie536
• Shiphtur197
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
6h 15m
KCM Race Survival
15h 15m
The PondCast
16h 15m
WardiTV Team League
18h 15m
OSC
18h 15m
Replay Cast
1d 6h
WardiTV Team League
1d 18h
RSL Revival
2 days
Cure vs Zoun
herO vs Rogue
WardiTV Team League
2 days
Platinum Heroes Events
2 days
[ Show More ]
BSL
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
ByuN vs Maru
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
WardiTV Team League
3 days
BSL
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Light vs Calm
Royal vs Mind
Wardi Open
4 days
Monday Night Weeklies
4 days
OSC
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
Rush vs PianO
Flash vs Speed
Replay Cast
6 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
BeSt vs Leta
Queen vs Jaedong
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-03-24
WardiTV Winter 2026
Underdog Cup #3

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
BSL Season 22
CSL Elite League 2026
CSL Season 20: Qualifier 1
ASL Season 21
Acropolis #4 - TS6
RSL Revival: Season 4
Nations Cup 2026
NationLESS Cup
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual

Upcoming

2026 Changsha Offline CUP
CSL Season 20: Qualifier 2
CSL 2026 SPRING (S20)
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
CCT Season 3 Global Finals
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
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.