Proving the Limit of x^n as x Approaches a Using Epsilon-Delta Definition

  • MHB
  • Thread starter Guest2
  • Start date
In summary: To see this without a calculus background, recall that the derivative is the slope of a "tangent" line. If you plot the graph of $f(x) = a^n$, it is a horizontal line when $x = a$. In this respect, it is "not changing" (i.e. it is "flat"). As you move away from that point, the graph becomes increasingly more vertical. The slope of the secant line for two points is:$m = \dfrac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \dfrac{f(x) - f(a)}{x - a} = \dfrac{a^n - a^n}{x - a} = 0
  • #1
Guest2
193
0
How does one prove that \(\displaystyle \displaystyle \lim_{x \to a} x^n = a^n\) directly from the epsilon-delta definition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What have you tried so far?
 
  • #3
Ackbach said:
What have you tried so far?
$\displaystyle |x^n-a^n| < \varepsilon \implies \bigg|x-a\bigg|\bigg|\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}x^k a^{n-k-1}\bigg| <\varepsilon \implies |x-a| < \frac{\epsilon}{ \bigg| \displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}x^k a^{n-k-1}\bigg|}$.

However, I don't know how to bound the denominator.
 
  • #4
One way to go about this is the approach my father has in his http://mathhelpboards.com/math-notes-49/method-proving-some-non-linear-limits-4149.html.

There are two parts to this method.

The procedure for obtaining $\delta=\delta_{0}$, (which
will work for all $ \varepsilon\ge \varepsilon_{0}$) is summarized as follows:
  1. Select an $ \varepsilon_{0}$ first
  2. Take $|f(x)-L|< \varepsilon_{0}$, work it algebraically to
    $L- \varepsilon_{0}<f(x)<L+ \varepsilon_{0}$, and finally work it down to $x_{1}<x<x_{2}$,
    where $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ will depend on $f(x)$, $L$, and the $ \varepsilon_{0}$ we
    pick.
  3. Take $\delta_{0}$ to be the lesser of $a-x_{1}$, and $x_{2}-a$.
  4. Then, for $|x-a|<\delta_{0}$, we know that $|f(x)-L|< \varepsilon$, for
    all $ \varepsilon\ge \varepsilon_{0}$.

Then we need to find $\delta$ that will work for all
$\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$. To summarize
our method:
  1. Take the ratio of $\tfrac{\delta_{0}}{ \varepsilon_{0}}$, both of
    which were determined in the previous section.
  2. Check to verify that $|g(x)|$ is indeed a minimum at one
    of the two points $a-\delta_{0}$ and $a+\delta_{0}$.
  3. If 2. checks out, then set

    $\delta=\tfrac{\delta_{0}}{ \varepsilon_{0}}\, \varepsilon$ for all
    $ \varepsilon< \varepsilon_{0}$.

In the final proof, we're going to set
$$\delta=\min\left(\tfrac{\delta_{0}}{ \varepsilon_{0}}\, \varepsilon,\delta_0\right).$$

So, how does this look for what we have here?
 
  • #5
Guest said:
How does one prove that \(\displaystyle \displaystyle \lim_{x \to a} x^n = a^n\) directly from the epsilon-delta definition?

Hi Guest,

Are we to assume that $n$ is a positive integer?
 
  • #6
If all you are looking to do is bound:

$\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}$

you can choose $\delta < a$ (assuming $a > 0$, but the case where $a < 0$ is similar)

so that $0 < x < 2a$

Then $\left|\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}\right| < \left|\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} 2^ka^{n-1}\right|< 2^{n-1}na^{n-1}$

and the latter is a constant.

It's a *crude* bound, but that shouldn't matter.

For $a < 0$, choose $\delta < |a|$, so that $0 < |x| < |2a|$, and use the triangle inequality on the polynomial sum.

The basis idea is that we are going to require that $|x - a|$ be small anyway, so $x$ is going to be near $a$, so the sum:

$\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}$ should be bounded by some expression in $|a|$ ( I just chose $\delta < |a|$ to simplify what otherwise would be rather horrendous algebra).
 
  • #7
Looking back at Guest's initial work, I assume $n$ is a positive integer. Let $a$ be a fixed real number and suppose $0 < |x - a| < 1$. By the triangle inequality, $|x| = |(x - a) + a| \le |x - a| + |a| < 1 + |a|$. Again, by the triangle inequality,

$$\left|\sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}\right| \le \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x^k a^{n-k-1}| = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x|^k|a|^{n-k-1} < \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} (1 + |a|)^k (1 + |a|)^{n-k-1} = n(1 + |a|)^{n-1},$$

and thus

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a|,$$

which can be made less than a positive number $\epsilon$ by making

$$|x - a| < \frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}.$$

Hence, given $\epsilon > 0$, I choose

$$\delta = \min\left\{1,\frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}\right\}.$$

For all $x$, $0 < |x - a| < \delta$ implies $0 < |x - a| < 1$ and $0 < |x - a| < \epsilon/[n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}]$, in which case

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a| < \epsilon.$$

Since $\epsilon$ and $a$ were arbitrary, $\lim\limits_{x\to a} x^n = a^n$ for all real numbers $a$.
 
  • #8
Euge said:
Looking back at Guest's initial work, I assume $n$ is a positive integer. Let $a$ be a fixed real number and suppose $0 < |x - a| < 1$. By the triangle inequality, $|x| = |(x - a) + a| \le |x - a| + |a| < 1 + |a|$. Again, by the triangle inequality,

$$\left|\sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} x^ka^{n-k-1}\right| \le \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x^k a^{n-k-1}| = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} |x|^k|a|^{n-k-1} < \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} (1 + |a|)^k (1 + |a|)^{n-k-1} = n(1 + |a|)^{n-1},$$

and thus

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a|,$$

which can be made less than a positive number $\epsilon$ by making

$$|x - a| < \frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}.$$

Hence, given $\epsilon > 0$, I choose

$$\delta = \min\left\{1,\frac{\epsilon}{n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}}\right\}.$$

For all $x$, $0 < |x - a| < \delta$ implies $0 < |x - a| < 1$ and $0 < |x - a| < \epsilon/[n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}]$, in which case

$$|x^n - a^n| < n(1 + |a|)^{n-1}|x - a| < \epsilon.$$

Since $\epsilon$ and $a$ were arbitrary, $\lim\limits_{x\to a} x^n = a^n$ for all real numbers $a$.

For the interested reader, Euge's and my approach are much the same-the idea is to replace $|x|$ with something involving $|a|$. His bound is "tighter", at least for those $a$ where $|a| > 1$.

Indeed, through a "crude" lens, both bounds are on the order of $na^{n-1}$ (the *derivative* of $a^n$ with respect to $a$). This is no accident, the derivative is the BEST possible linear approximation (and $x - a$ is a linear factor of $x^n - a^n$).

One advantage to his method, is it is clear the denominator in one of his possible choices for $\delta$ can never be $0$ (since $1 + |a| > 0$ for all $a$). With my method, the case $a = 0$ has to be handled separately (hopefully it should be clear that this limit is easy to estalbish directly from the definition).

In any case, my main point is with problems like these, there's no "one perfect way to skin the cat". All you have to do is exhibit ANY $\delta > 0$ that works, and there's many,many ways you might derive such a $\delta$.
 

FAQ: Proving the Limit of x^n as x Approaches a Using Epsilon-Delta Definition

What is the limit of x^n as x approaches a?

The limit of x^n as x approaches a is denoted as lim x^n as x approaches a. It represents the value that x^n approaches as x gets closer and closer to a.

How do you evaluate the limit of x^n as x goes to a?

To evaluate the limit of x^n as x goes to a, we can substitute a into the expression for x and simplify the resulting expression. If the resulting expression is undefined, we can try using other methods such as L'Hopital's rule or factoring to evaluate the limit.

What is the difference between a one-sided limit and a two-sided limit?

A one-sided limit only considers the values of x approaching a from one direction, either from the left or the right. A two-sided limit considers the values of x approaching a from both the left and the right, and the limit only exists if the one-sided limits from both directions are equal.

Can a limit of x^n as x goes to a have a different value from the function's actual value at a?

Yes, a limit of x^n as x goes to a can have a different value from the function's actual value at a. This can happen if there is a discontinuity or an asymptote at a, which means that the function does not exist at a, but the limit still exists.

What are some common methods for finding the limit of x^n as x goes to a?

Some common methods for finding the limit of x^n as x goes to a include direct substitution, factoring, using algebraic manipulation, L'Hopital's rule, and using known limit laws such as the sum, difference, and product laws.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
790
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top