MHB How can we show the existance of a ε?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
To demonstrate the existence of an ε such that |h1(x) - h2(x)| ≥ ε for all x in [0,1], it is established that since h1(x) ≠ h2(x) for each x, the function f(x) = h1(x) - h2(x) is either always positive or always negative. This implies |f(x)| > 0 for all x in the interval. By the properties of continuous functions on a closed and bounded interval, |f| achieves a minimum value at some point a in [0,1]. Setting ε equal to |f(a)| ensures that the condition |f(x)| ≥ ε holds for all x in [0,1]. The reasoning confirms the correctness of the approach to find ε.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Suppose that $h_1,h_2:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be continuous functions.

I want to show that there is a $\epsilon>0$ such that $|h_1(x)-h_2(x)|\geq \epsilon$ for each $x\in [0,1]$, given that $h_1(x)\neq h_2(x)$ for each $x\in [0,1]$. I have done the following:

We know that $h_1(x)\neq h_2(x)$ for each $x\in [0,1]$, that means that $f(x):=h_1(x)-h_2(x)$ is either $>0$ or $<0$ but never $=0$.

Therefore, we have that $|f(x)|>0, \forall x\in [0,1]$. That means that there is a $\epsilon>0$ such that $|f(x)|\geq \epsilon, \forall x\in [0,1]$. Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it's correct. However, you may need to justify the last step. Since $|f|$ is continuous on a closed and bounded interval, it has a minimum at some point $a\in [0,1]$. Setting $\epsilon = |f(a)|$ does the job.
 
Euge said:
Yes, it's correct. However, you may need to justify the last step. Since $|f|$ is continuous on a closed and bounded interval, it has a minimum at some point $a\in [0,1]$. Setting $\epsilon = |f(a)|$ does the job.

I see... Thank you very much! (Yes)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K