Proving a Limit: Rigour for Univ. Profs?

  • Thread starter JG89
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses a method for proving a limit using the epsilon-delta formalism. The method involves taking \epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1) and showing that as delta goes to 0, the entire expression also goes to 0, thus showing the limit is 0. The conversation also touches on the rigorousness of this approach and the importance of showing each step explicitly.
  • #1
JG89
728
1
I was trying to prove a limit, and I found that I can take [tex] \epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1) [/tex] since as delta goes to 0, it's obvious that entire expression also goes to 0, so epsilon also goes to 0.

My question is, how is the rigorousness of this? Will it be good enough for a uni. prof? (I have no experience with them)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Actually, you should end up with choosing the delta, letting the epsilon be the arbitrary quantity.

Your profs will put their claws into that mistake of yours!.

So, rearrange your estimate to choosing delta as:
[tex]\delta\leq(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{13}}+1)^{2}-1[/tex]
 
  • #3
Thanks. It makes more sense when I re-arrange for delta. I know the steps are clearly reversible, but I guess I should get into the habit of solving for delta.
 
  • #4
JG89 said:
Thanks. It makes more sense when I re-arrange for delta. I know the steps are clearly reversible, but I guess I should get into the habit of solving for delta.
Indeed you should!
 
  • #5
JG89 said:
I was trying to prove a limit, and I found that I can take [tex] \epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1) [/tex] since as delta goes to 0, it's obvious that entire expression also goes to 0, so epsilon also goes to 0.

My question is, how is the rigorousness of this? Will it be good enough for a uni. prof? (I have no experience with them)

I'd say it's pretty obvious. It depends on the class and teacher I'd think. For a first-year analysis class, take the steps to prove it. If you're doing differential geometry, it's too basic to bother with.

If you want to avoid stupid pokes at your grade, you can always summarize a proof:

"The expression above approaches zero. [tex]\sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1) [/tex] approaches zero if [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1[/tex] approaches zero, [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1[/tex] approaches 0 if [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1}[/tex] approaches one, and [tex]\sqrt[]{\delta + 1}[/tex] approaches one if [tex]\delta + 1[/tex] does, which it does.

Or more concisely, you can explain that since the [tex]\sqrt{13}[/tex] factor, and the other terms are constant functions, it simply follows from the algebraic rules for limits that the whole deal is zero in the limit.
 
  • #6
Well, since OP couldn't possibly be studying higher order topics like differential geometry and still be uncertain about error estimation, I chose to regard OP as a bright student just having learned about the epsilo-delta formalism.
 
  • #7
Wait, what the heck? What limit are you trying to prove and why is there so much talk about epsilons and deltas approaching zero? Isn't it obvious that in most cases, if delta is to depend on epsilon, which is just an arbitrary positive number, then the smaller the epsilon that you are given, your delta will usually get smaller as well?

I mean I'm assuming the only reason you found delta so explicitly is so that you can estimate |f(x) - L| by making it less than epsilon, in which case it suffices to just make sure delta is actually positive?
 
  • #8
If they're asking you to find delta explicitly, you have to show every single step. They're testing to see if you understand the definitions, and forgetting which constant is arbitrary is a dead giveaway.
 
  • #9
JG89 said:
I was trying to prove a limit, and I found that I can take [tex] \epsilon = \sqrt[]{13}(\sqrt[]{\delta + 1} - 1) [/tex] since as delta goes to 0, it's obvious that entire expression also goes to 0, so epsilon also goes to 0.

My question is, how is the rigorousness of this? Will it be good enough for a uni. prof? (I have no experience with them)

Depends where in your uni. career this is. For example, if this is early, before the existence of square roots has been proved, you are not going to get away with this. Also "It's obvious" may not be a good enough reason in some contexts.
 
  • #10
g_edgar said:
Depends where in your uni. career this is. For example, if this is early, before the existence of square roots has been proved, you are not going to get away with this. Also "It's obvious" may not be a good enough reason in some contexts.

I figured. I haven't actually started uni. yet, I start next week :)

I really don't want to lose marks over stupid mistakes. I will just take arildno's advice and always express delta explicitly.
 

FAQ: Proving a Limit: Rigour for Univ. Profs?

What is meant by "proving a limit"?

Proving a limit refers to the process of mathematically demonstrating that a given function approaches a specific value as its input approaches a certain value. This is typically done using the formal definition of a limit, which involves showing that for any arbitrarily small value, there exists a corresponding value of the input for which the function's output is within that small value of the desired limit.

Why is proving a limit important for university professors?

University professors often teach courses in calculus and other mathematical subjects that involve limits. In order to effectively teach these concepts, they must have a thorough understanding of how to prove limits. Additionally, professors often conduct research that involves limits, so a strong understanding of how to prove them is crucial for their work.

What are some common techniques used to prove limits?

There are several techniques that can be used to prove limits, including the epsilon-delta method, the squeeze theorem, and the use of known limit laws. The specific technique used will depend on the specific function being evaluated and the desired limit.

How do you know when a limit has been rigorously proven?

A limit is considered to be rigorously proven when it meets the criteria set forth in the formal definition of a limit. This means that for any arbitrarily small value, there exists a corresponding value of the input for which the function's output is within that small value of the desired limit.

What are some common mistakes made when attempting to prove a limit?

One common mistake is assuming that a limit exists without actually proving it. Another mistake is not considering all possible values of the input when evaluating the limit. It is also important to be careful with algebraic manipulations and to make sure they are valid for the given function. Finally, not clearly stating each step of the proof can also lead to errors.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top