Proving limit statement using delta-epsilon definition

In summary, using the precise definition of limits and infinite limits, it can be proven that if for all x\in R, f(x)>0, then \lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty if and only if \lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0. This can be done by showing that, given any M>0, there exists a δ such that f(x)>M whenever 0<|x-a|<δ, using ε=1/M and the assumption that \lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0.
  • #1
drawar
132
0

Homework Statement



For all [itex]x\in R[/itex] , [itex]f(x)>0[/itex] . Using precise definition of limits and infinite limits, prove that [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty[/itex] if and only if [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex]

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I know the precise definition of limits and infinite limits but I cannot see how they can be applied in this case. Also this is biconditional statement so I guess I got to deduce 2 sub-proofs before drawing the conclusion. Ok that's all I've thought of this far, any hints would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
drawar said:

Homework Statement



For all [itex]x\in R[/itex] , [itex]f(x)>0[/itex] . Using precise definition of limits and infinite limits, prove that [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty[/itex] if and only if [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex]

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution



I know the precise definition of limits and infinite limits but I cannot see how they can be applied in this case. Also this is biconditional statement so I guess I got to deduce 2 sub-proofs before drawing the conclusion. Ok that's all I've thought of this far, any hints would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
If [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to\,a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 \,,[/itex] then restate this using δ - ε language.

That should get you started.
 
  • #3
Ok here's my working for the first part, that is if [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex] then [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty[/itex].

Since [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex] exists,
if we let ε > 0, then there exists a δ such that
[itex]0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \frac{1}{{\left| {f(x)} \right|}} < \varepsilon[/itex]

Choose [itex]M=\frac{1}{ε}[/itex] > 0, then
[itex]0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \frac{1}{{\left| {f(x)} \right|}} < \frac{1}{{{M}}}\\
0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \left|f(x)\right| > M[/itex]

How could I get rid of the modulus of [itex]f(x)[/itex] in this case?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
drawar said:
Ok here's my working for the first part, that is if [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex] then [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty[/itex].

Since [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex] exists,
if we let ε > 0, then there exists a δ such that
[itex]0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \frac{1}{{\left| {f(x)} \right|}} < \varepsilon[/itex]

Choose [itex]M=\frac{1}{ε}[/itex] > 0, then
[itex]0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \frac{1}{{\left| {f(x)} \right|}} < \frac{1}{{\left| {f(M)} \right|}}\\
0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \left|f(x)\right| > M[/itex]

How could I get rid of the modulus of [itex]f(x)[/itex] in this case?
It's almost there.

(I'm still talking about the first part of the proof here.)

What is the definition for [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty\ ?[/itex] In other words how do we show that [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty\ ?[/itex]

You need to show that, given any M > 0, there exists a δ such the f(x) > M, whenever 0 < |x-a| < δ .

So, to begin the proof, let M > 0.

Then let ε = 1/M.

Since you are assuming that [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex], you can get your δ which makes [itex]\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(x)}<\varepsilon= \frac{1}{M} \ \ \dots[/itex]
 
  • #5
SammyS said:
It's almost there.

(I'm still talking about the first part of the proof here.)

What is the definition for [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty\ ?[/itex] In other words how do we show that [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty\ ?[/itex]

You need to show that, given any M > 0, there exists a δ such the f(x) > M, whenever 0 < |x-a| < δ .

So, to begin the proof, let M > 0.

Then let ε = 1/M.

Since you are assuming that [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex], you can get your δ which makes [itex]\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(x)}<\varepsilon= \frac{1}{M} \ \ \dots[/itex]

When it comes to this kind of problem I always try to manipulate f(x) to the form of |x-a| before choosing a δ that works. But in this generalized case how am I supposed to do that?
 
  • #6
Drawar, the technique of manipulating the form of |f(x) - L| and so on is a good one for trying to estimate the [itex]\epsilon[/itex]'s and [itex]\delta[/itex]'s you need. But eventually you have to understand what your goal is, and what you need to find.

As SammyS said:
You begin by having a general M > 0, for which you need to find a suitable [itex]\delta[/itex], so that for each x satisfying [itex]|x-a| < \delta[/itex], f(x) > M holds.
But f(x) > M means: [itex]\frac{1}{f(x)}< \frac{1}{M}[/itex]. Can you find such a [itex]\delta[/itex] that will ensure that? I bet you can -- it's very much implied from your assumption on [itex]\frac{1}{f(x)}[/itex]...
Hope this helps!
 
  • #7
Tomer said:
Drawar, the technique of manipulating the form of |f(x) - L| and so on is a good one for trying to estimate the [itex]\epsilon[/itex]'s and [itex]\delta[/itex]'s you need. But eventually you have to understand what your goal is, and what you need to find.

As SammyS said:
You begin by having a general M > 0, for which you need to find a suitable [itex]\delta[/itex], so that for each x satisfying [itex]|x-a| < \delta[/itex], f(x) > M holds.
But f(x) > M means: [itex]\frac{1}{f(x)}< \frac{1}{M}[/itex]. Can you find such a [itex]\delta[/itex] that will ensure that? I bet you can -- it's very much implied from your assumption on [itex]\frac{1}{f(x)}[/itex]...
Hope this helps!

But how should we choose such a δ? In terms of ε or M? Sorry you guys but I don't really get what you said. I thought after letting ε=1/M then the proof is completed.
 
  • #8
drawar said:
When it comes to this kind of problem I always try to manipulate f(x) to the form of |x-a| before choosing a δ that works. But in this generalized case how am I supposed to do that?
Well, this is a different sort of problem.

You're not give a specific function to manipulate in the way you describe.

You assume that [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to\,a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0[/itex] is true.

Now to show that [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to\,a}f(x)=\infty\ ,[/itex] you need to prove that given any M > 0, (no matter how large) , there exists a δ such that f(x) > M whenever 0<|x-a|<0 .

Use 1/M as your ε. Then using this 1/M as ε with [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to\,a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0[/itex] find a delta. Show the this δ works with M for [itex]\displaystyle \lim_{x\to\,a}f(x)=\infty\ .[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #9
drawar said:
But how should we choose such a δ? In terms of ε or M? Sorry you guys but I don't really get what you said. I thought after letting ε=1/M then the proof is completed.

Well - that's exactly it! You need to promise me you can find such a delta - even without specifying it!
So by choosing, as you and others mentioned, ε = 1/M, you can say, according to your assumption, that there exists a δ (let's call it δ'!), so that for every x satisfying |x-a| < δ',
[itex]\frac{1}{f(x)} < \epsilon[/itex] holds...
This δ' is what you need...
 
  • #10
So the (<=) proof would look like this, right?

Let M > 0 and let ε=1/M > 0
Since [itex]\lim_{x\to a}\frac{1}{f(x)}=0 [/itex] exists, then there exists a δ such that
[itex]0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \frac{1}{{\left| {f(x)} \right|}} < \varepsilon[/itex]
[itex]0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow \frac{1}{{ {f(x)}}} < \frac{1}{{{M}}}\\
0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta \Rightarrow f(x) > M[/itex]
this means [itex]\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=\infty[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Looks perfect to me ;)
You could sum up by saying: for every M > 0 we have therefore found a δ > 0, so that for every x satisfying |x - a| < δ, f(x) > M holds - which makes it perfect and shows that you know what you're doing - but the important thing is that you understood the logic of it!
 
  • #12
Tomer said:
Looks perfect to me ;)
You could sum up by saying: for every M > 0 we have therefore found a δ > 0, so that for every x satisfying |x - a| < δ, f(x) > M holds - which makes it perfect and shows that you know what you're doing - but the important thing is that you understood the logic of it!

Hell yeah thank you so much!
Ok for the (=>) proof, I think just let M=1/ε and do everything backwards. Am I right?
 
  • #13
Yup, sounds about right ;) Make sure you formulate it logically and you have it...
 
  • #14
Thank you guys for all of your kind help and guidance. :) Finally figured it out now.
 

FAQ: Proving limit statement using delta-epsilon definition

What is the delta-epsilon definition of a limit?

The delta-epsilon definition of a limit is a mathematical method used to formally prove that a function approaches a specific value as its input approaches a certain value. It involves finding a value for delta (represented by Δ) that corresponds to a given value for epsilon (represented by ɛ), such that all inputs within a certain distance from the limit point will produce outputs within a specified distance from the limit value.

Why is the delta-epsilon definition important?

The delta-epsilon definition is important because it provides a rigorous and precise way to prove the behavior of a function near a specific point. It is a fundamental concept in calculus and is used to prove important theorems and properties, such as the continuity and differentiability of functions.

How do you prove a limit statement using the delta-epsilon definition?

To prove a limit statement using the delta-epsilon definition, you must show that for any given value of epsilon, there exists a value of delta such that the distance between the input and the limit point is less than delta, and the distance between the output and the limit value is less than epsilon. This can be done by manipulating the definition and using algebraic techniques to find a suitable delta value.

What are some common mistakes when proving a limit statement using the delta-epsilon definition?

One common mistake is assuming that a specific value for delta will work for all values of epsilon. Another mistake is using the same value for delta for both sides of the inequality, when in fact, the delta values for the left and right sides may be different. It's also important to remember that the delta-epsilon definition only applies for inputs close to the limit point, not for all inputs.

How can the delta-epsilon definition be applied in real-world situations?

The delta-epsilon definition can be used in various real-world situations, such as engineering and physics, to prove the behavior of physical systems and functions. For example, it can be used to prove the stability of a bridge or the accuracy of a measurement instrument. Additionally, it can be used in economics and finance to analyze the behavior of markets and investments.

Back
Top