Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$
Proof:
Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$
Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$
Is this proof valid?
real-analysis limits proof-verification lipschitz-functions
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$
Proof:
Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$
Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$
Is this proof valid?
real-analysis limits proof-verification lipschitz-functions
Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$
Proof:
Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$
Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$
Is this proof valid?
real-analysis limits proof-verification lipschitz-functions
Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$
Proof:
Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$
Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$
Is this proof valid?
real-analysis limits proof-verification lipschitz-functions
real-analysis limits proof-verification lipschitz-functions
edited Nov 17 at 0:28
Scientifica
5,81141331
5,81141331
asked Nov 17 at 0:04
coreyman317
681218
681218
Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10
add a comment |
Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10
Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10
Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.
You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.
You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.
Here's what you want to prove:
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:
$$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
1
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
$$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
$$
Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.
You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.
You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.
Here's what you want to prove:
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:
$$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
1
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.
You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.
You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.
Here's what you want to prove:
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:
$$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
1
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.
You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.
You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.
Here's what you want to prove:
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:
$$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.
You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.
You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.
You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.
Here's what you want to prove:
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:
$$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$
And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.
answered Nov 17 at 0:28
Scientifica
5,81141331
5,81141331
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
1
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
add a comment |
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
1
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 0:30
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
@coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:37
1
1
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
@coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 0:46
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
Thank you @Scientifica
– coreyman317
Nov 17 at 1:01
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
@coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
– Scientifica
Nov 17 at 11:59
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
$$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
$$
Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
$$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
$$
Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
$$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
$$
Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.
Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
$$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
$$
Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.
answered Nov 17 at 0:30
BenCWBrown
3557
3557
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001803%2fshow-that-fx-l-leq-kx-c-implies-lim-x-to-c-fx-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10