my question is regarding the last part since $|x+3|<6$ I thought it must be that $$ |x-2|<\frac{\epsilon}{6}<\frac{\epsilon}{|x+3|} $$ and not $$ |x-2|<\frac{\epsilon}{|x+3|}<\frac{\epsilon}{6} $$ I think I'm missing something, maybe someone can help me with this problem. the whole proof is in this paper it is the 4th proof. $$ \lim _{x \rightarrow 2} x^{2}+x-2=4 $$ We start the same way we always do. By now this part should be automatic. $$ \begin{aligned} |f(x)-L|<\epsilon & \Longrightarrow\left|\left(x^{2}+x-2\right)-4\right|<\epsilon \\ & \Longrightarrow\left|\left(x^{2}+x-6\right)\right|<\epsilon \\ & \Longrightarrow|(x+3)(x-2)|<\epsilon \\ & \Longrightarrow|x+3||x-2|<\epsilon \\ & \Longrightarrow|x-2|<\frac{\epsilon}{|x+3|} \end{aligned} $$ Once again we have the left side in the form $|x-a| .$ Now we can let $\delta$ equal $\frac{\epsilon}{|x+3|}$. But what do we do about the $|x+3| .$ In general $\delta$ must be in terms of $\epsilon$ only, without any extra variables. So how we can remove this $x+3$ term? First we need to simplify the problem a little bit. Since the concept of limit only applies when $x$ is close to $a$, we will first restrict $x$ so that it is at most 1 away from $a$, or, mathematically, $|x-a|<1$ (in our case $|x-2|<1$. Then, this means, $1<x<3$, or $4<x+3<6$. Now consider the original inequality $$ \begin{array}{c} |x-2|<\frac{\epsilon}{|x+3|} \end{array} $$ Notice that the right hand side is at the minimum when $x+3$ is at its maximum. Since the maximum of $x+3$ is $6,$ we know that $$ |x-2|<\frac{\epsilon}{|x+3|}<\frac{\epsilon}{6} $$
2026-04-07 12:04:32.1775563472
Question about a worked out problem regarding epsilon-delta Proof
65 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in REAL-ANALYSIS
- how is my proof on equinumerous sets
- Finding radius of convergence $\sum _{n=0}^{}(2+(-1)^n)^nz^n$
- Optimization - If the sum of objective functions are similar, will sum of argmax's be similar
- On sufficient condition for pre-compactness "in measure"(i.e. in Young measure space)
- Justify an approximation of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty G_n/\binom{\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{n}{2}}$, where $G_n$ denotes the Gregory coefficients
- Calculating the radius of convergence for $\sum _{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sqrt{ n^2+n}-\sqrt{n^2+1}\right)^n}{n^2}z^n$
- Is this relating to continuous functions conjecture correct?
- What are the functions satisfying $f\left(2\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{3^i}\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{a_i}{2^i}$
- Absolutely continuous functions are dense in $L^1$
- A particular exercise on convergence of recursive sequence
Related Questions in EPSILON-DELTA
- A statement using the $\epsilon - \delta$ - definition
- Prove that $\lim_{n\to \infty} (a_1a_2\ldots a_n)^{\frac 1n} = L$ given that $\lim_{n\to \infty} (a_n) = L$
- Another statement using the $\epsilon$- $\delta$- definition
- Prove that if $f$ is strictly increasing at each point of (a,b), then $f$ is strictly increasing on (a,b).
- I want to know every single bit there is to understand in this following proof
- Trouble Understanding the Proof of the limit of Thomae's Function in $(0,1)$ is $0$
- Trying to understand delta-epsilon interpretation of limits
- How to rephrase these delta epsilon inequalities?
- How to prove this delta-epsilon proof?
- How to prove this delta-epsilon proof involving $x^2$?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
It seems that your logic is going in the wrong direction. While it is often best to start with $|f(x) - L| < \varepsilon$ when figuring out the proof, ultimately your logical argument has to start with assuming $0 < |x - a| < \delta$ (where $\delta$ is the function of $\varepsilon$ you've chosen), and it has to end by concluding $|f(x) - L| < \varepsilon$.
Using your work so far, it looks like we need $\delta = \min\{1, \varepsilon / 6\}$. We then have \begin{align*} 0 < |x - 2| < \min\left\{1, \frac{\varepsilon}{6}\right\} &\implies |x - 2| < 1 \text{ and } 6|x - 2| < \varepsilon \\ &\implies |x + 3| < 6 \text{ and } 6|x - 2| < \varepsilon \\ &\implies |x + 3||x - 2| < 6|x - 2| < \varepsilon \\ &\implies |x^2 + x - 2 - 4| < \varepsilon, \end{align*} completing the proof. Note that the logic makes perfect sense, when written in order!
EDIT: Let me see if I can explain a bit better. I still think this is a misconception about the direction of the flow of logic, but we can make this clearer, I think. You are absolutely right when you say it should be $$|x-2|<\frac{\varepsilon}{6}<\frac{\varepsilon}{|x+3|}, \tag{1}$$ not $$|x-2|<\frac{\varepsilon}{|x+3|}<\frac{\varepsilon}{6}. \tag{2}$$ And it is. Really, we are using $(1)$, not $(2)$. We want to put the step $|x - 2| < \varepsilon/6$ (where the $\varepsilon/6$ is derived from our choice of $\delta$) before the step $|x - 2| < \varepsilon / |x + 3|$. We want the logic to go: $$|x - 2| < \frac{\varepsilon}{6} \implies |x - 2| < \frac{\varepsilon}{|x+3|},$$ which is what $(1)$, not $(2)$, delivers to us. This is because, for our choice of $\delta$, $|x - 2| < \varepsilon/6$ follows easily from $0 < |x - 2| < \delta$, and $|x^2 + x - 2 - 4| < \varepsilon$ follows easily from $|x - 2| < \varepsilon / |x + 3|$.
As I said, I think you were viewing this from the wrong direction. In your working, you very explicitly started with $|x^2 + x - 2 - 4| < \varepsilon$, and worked backwards. You reached the step $|x - 2| < \varepsilon / |x + 3|$ first, and started looking for ways to show that this implied $|x - 2| < \varepsilon/6$.
This implication is false. In order for something like that to be true, you'd want $(2)$ to be true, but it isn't. That way, you could then conclude that $|x - 2| < \varepsilon / 6$, and then end with $|x - 2| < \delta$. But this is simply not what the definition of a limit requires. You don't need to show $$0 < |x - a| < \delta \impliedby |f(x) - L| < \varepsilon,$$ you need to show the converse instead.