What is the limit paradox of the function f(x) = x/{(x-1)2(x-3)}?

In summary, the conversation discusses a paradox and the need to prove that the limit of a function equals negative infinity. Two cases are presented, one where the function is less than a given number and another where it is greater. However, there are flaws in the proof as the value of a is not given, making it impossible to define the limit. The conversation then moves on to discussing another limit where the function is continuous and the limit is always equal to a certain value. The conversation ends with a question about how to ensure the assumption made in the proof is always correct.
  • #1
tanzl
61
0
I have a paradox here. Please tell me what is wrong.
I need to prove that [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]

1st case

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)<M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x<a ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] < P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
< [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) < M

Done.

2nd case (The opposite case)

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)>M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

As above,
0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x>a-[tex]\delta[/tex] ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] > P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
> [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) > M

Done.

I derive the both cases with the same arguments but obtain opposite result. What is wrong with my proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Haven't read yoru question but you would do \lim_{x \rightarrow a} to give you:

[tex] \lim_{x \rightarrow a}[/tex]
 
  • #3
tanzl said:
I have a paradox here. Please tell me what is wrong.
I need to prove that [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]

1st case

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)<M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x<a ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] < P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
< [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) < M

Done.

2nd case (The opposite case)

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)>M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

As above,
0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x>a-[tex]\delta[/tex] ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] > P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
> [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) > M

Done.

I derive the both cases with the same arguments but obtain opposite result. What is wrong with my proof?

There's a LOT wrong that 'proof'. It doesn't really prove anything. You can't even BEGIN to prove something about the limit of f(x) as x->a until you know what a is! What is it?
 
  • #4
tanzl said:
I have a paradox here. Please tell me what is wrong.
I need to prove that [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]

1st case

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)<M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x<a ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] < P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
< [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) < M

Done.

2nd case (The opposite case)

For all M , where M is a arbitrary large number, there exists [tex]\delta[/tex]>0 such that f(x)>M whenever 0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex]

As above,
0 < a-x < [tex]\delta[/tex].
a-[tex]\delta[/tex] < x < a
Therefore x>a-[tex]\delta[/tex] ...(1)

Let |x-a| < [tex]\delta[/tex]1 where [tex]\delta[/tex]1 is a positive number such that [tex]\frac{1}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex] > P where P is a positive number. ...(2)

f(x) = [tex]\frac{x}{(x-1)^2(x-3)}[/tex]
> [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex] ... from (1) and (2)
Let [tex]\frac{a-\delta}{P}[/tex]=M
f(x) > M

Done.

I derive the both cases with the same arguments but obtain opposite result. What is wrong with my proof?
One problem you have is that you haven't said what a is!
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a-}f(x) = -\infty[/tex]
is true only if a= 1. where did you use that?
 
  • #5
You all are right. It is impossible to define the limit if a is not given.
I confuse this with the case [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = a^4[/itex],
where f(x) = x4.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=252170

I think it is correct in x4 case because it is continuous and the limit of it when x is approaching "a" is always equals to a4 whereas in this question, I can only define that when x is approaching a certain "a", the limit is -[tex]\infty[/tex] but generally when a is any numbers, the limit is not [tex]-\infty[/tex].

Please help me to check this so that I can make sure that what I am doing is correct.
Prove that [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1}f(x) = 1[/itex] , where [itex]f(x) = \frac{1}{x}[/itex].

For all \epsilon >0 , there exists \delta >0 , such that whenever 0<|x-1|<\delta , then [itex]|f(x)-1|<\epsilon[/itex].

|f(x)-1|
[itex]= |\frac{1}{x} - 1|[/itex]
[itex]= |\frac{1-x}{x}|[/itex]
[itex]=\frac{|1-x|}{|x|}[/itex]
[itex]=|1-x|*\frac{1}{x}[/itex]

By letting [itex]\delta = \delta_1[/itex] where [itex]\delta_1[/itex] is an arbitrary positive number such that [itex]\frac{1}{x} < M[/itex] , where M is an arbitrary positive number. (This is the part I am not very sure, my reasoning is there exists [itex]0<|x-1|<\delta_1/[/itex] such that I can get [itex]\frac{1}{|x|} < M[/itex], but how can I make sure that this assumption is always correct)

So, [itex]|f(x)-1| < \delta*M = \epsilon[/itex]
where [itex]\delta = min [ \delta_1 ,\frac{M}{\epsilon}][/itex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Y some of the LATEX is not displayed?
 
  • #7
Because you didn't tell it to! You did not include the [ tex ] and [ / tex ] tags. Also do not use the HTML tags and in LaTex. use ^ and _ instead.
 
  • #8
tanzl said:
You all are right. It is impossible to define the limit if a is not given.
I confuse this with the case [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = a^4[/itex],
where f(x) = x4.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=252170

I think it is correct in x4 case because it is continuous and the limit of it when x is approaching "a" is always equals to a4 whereas in this question, I can only define that when x is approaching a certain "a", the limit is -[tex]\infty[/tex] but generally when a is any numbers, the limit is not [tex]-\infty[/tex].

Please help me to check this so that I can make sure that what I am doing is correct.
Prove that [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1}f(x) = 1[/itex] , where [itex]f(x) = \frac{1}{x}[/itex].

For all \epsilon >0 , there exists \delta >0 , such that whenever 0<|x-1|<\delta , then [itex]|f(x)-1|<\epsilon[/itex].

|f(x)-1|
[itex]= |\frac{1}{x} - 1|[/itex]
[itex]= |\frac{1-x}{x}|[/itex]
[itex]=\frac{|1-x|}{|x|}[/itex]
[itex]=|1-x|*\frac{1}{x}[/itex]

By letting [itex]\delta = \delta_1[/itex] where [itex]\delta_1[/itex] is an arbitrary positive number such that [itex]\frac{1}{x} < M[/itex] , where M is an arbitrary positive number. (This is the part I am not very sure, my reasoning is there exists [itex]0<|x-1|<\delta_1/[/itex] such that I can get [itex]\frac{1}{|x|} < M[/itex], but how can I make sure that this assumption is always correct)

So, [itex]|f(x)-1| < \delta*M = \epsilon[/itex]
where [itex]\delta = min [ \delta_1 ,\frac{M}{\epsilon}][/itex]
You need to be a little more careful. If, say, 0< |x-1|< 1/2, then -1/2< x- 1< 1/2 so
1/2< x< 3/2. Now you can say that 1/x< 1/(1/2)= 2. |f(x)-1|< 2|1- x|.
 
  • #9
Consider the function f(x) = x/{(x-1)2(x-3)}

If x has any value other than 1 or 3, the value of f(x) can be calculated by substituting the value of x in the formula. For example, if x=5, f(x) = f(5) = 5/(42*2) = 5/32. The limit of f(x), for x approaching 5, whether from above or from below, will also be 5/32, as f is a continuous function on any interval that does not include 1 or 3.

The only nontrivial limits are therefore those for x approaching 1 or 3 from above or from below, and those for x approaching plus or minus infinity (that is, x increasing or decreasing without bound).

First we should realize that f(x) = 0 if and only if x = 0.

For very large |x|, f(x) will be nearly equal to x/x3 = 1/x2, which approaches zero from above if x approaches plus or minus infinity. The same should be true for f(x).

For x approaching 1 from below (i.e. x<1 and x<3, but x>0) f(x) will have negative values.
For x approaching 1 from above (i.e. x>1 but x<3) f(x) will also have negative values.
For x approaching 3 from below (i.e. x<3, but x>1) f(x) will still have negative values.
For x approaching 3 from above (i.e. x>3 and x>1) f(x) will have positive values.

If |x-1| < epsilon, |f(x)| will be larger than 1/(3-1)*1/(epsilon)2.
If |x-3| < epsilon, |f(x)| will be larger than 1/(3-1)2*1/epsilon.
These absolute values will therefore increase without bounds when epsilon approaches zero.

Therefore f(x) approaches minus infinity if x approaches 1 from above or below, or 3 from below; and f(x) approaches plus infinity if x approaches 3 from above.
 

FAQ: What is the limit paradox of the function f(x) = x/{(x-1)2(x-3)}?

What is the definition of limit paradox?

The limit paradox is a mathematical concept that describes a situation where a function appears to approach a certain value or limit, but never actually reaches that value. This creates a paradox because the function should either reach the limit or not approach it at all.

How is limit paradox different from a limit?

A limit is a mathematical concept that describes the behavior of a function as it approaches a certain value. In contrast, a limit paradox occurs when the function appears to approach the limit, but never actually reaches it.

What causes a limit paradox?

A limit paradox can be caused by various factors, such as discontinuities, infinite oscillations, or undefined or indeterminate forms. These issues can arise when trying to evaluate a limit using certain mathematical techniques or formulas.

Can a limit paradox be resolved?

Yes, a limit paradox can be resolved by using advanced mathematical techniques or by changing the approach to evaluating the limit. In some cases, a limit paradox may also be resolved by considering the underlying assumptions and conditions of the function.

How does understanding limit paradox benefit scientific research?

Understanding limit paradox can be beneficial in various scientific fields, such as physics, engineering, and economics. It allows researchers to identify and address potential errors or limitations in their mathematical models and calculations, leading to more accurate and reliable results.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
758
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top