Mixing
Proof Verification: Differentiability implies continuity.
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Proof:
Let $x$ be a real number, since $f(x)$ is differentiable, or $lim_{x to
a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ exists and is equal to $f'(a)$. So, for any $epsilon' > 0$ there exists a $delta > 0$, such that $0<|x-a| < delta$
$implies |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < epsilon'$
Using the Triangle inequality, we get
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
$implies |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon' delta + |f'(a)| delta$
Here's where I start getting unsure whether my proof is correct or not. This inequality is true for $epsilon'$ = $frac{epsilon}{delta'} - |f'(a)|$ where $delta' < delta$ such that $frac{epsilon}{delta'} > |f'(a)|$
This gives us
$ |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon$
The logic behind the proof is that if someone gives asks me to find an appropriate delta for $epsilon = h$, I'll find a delta for $epsilon' = h$, say that delta is equal to $n$. Next I solve for $epsilon'$ using $epsilon' = frac{h}{n} - |f'(a)|$. If on solving I get a negative $epsilon'$, I decrease $delta'$ to a value $n_0$ such that I get a positive value for $epsilon'$ and then get the corresponding delta, $n_1$. The minimum of $n_1$ and $n_0$ would be the required delta.
Please let me know where exactly the proof starts to go wrong. While alternate proofs are appreciated, the main goal here is understanding why this proof is wrong.
EDIT: After thinking about the problem for a while and reading a few of the answers, I found a way to communicate the idea more effectively.
Continuing from $|f(x)-f(a)| < (epsilon' + |f'(a)|) delta$
Now we need to show that we can represent any positive real number, $epsilon$, by taking appropriate values of $delta$ and $epsilon'$. Fix $epsilon' = 1$. Now $delta$ is just $frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|}$. To complete our answer, let one value of $delta$ for $epsilon' = 1$ be $delta_0$. Our final answer would be $delta = min(delta_0,frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|})$
real-analysis epsilon-delta
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Proof:
Let $x$ be a real number, since $f(x)$ is differentiable, or $lim_{x to
a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ exists and is equal to $f'(a)$. So, for any $epsilon' > 0$ there exists a $delta > 0$, such that $0<|x-a| < delta$
$implies |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < epsilon'$
Using the Triangle inequality, we get
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
$implies |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon' delta + |f'(a)| delta$
Here's where I start getting unsure whether my proof is correct or not. This inequality is true for $epsilon'$ = $frac{epsilon}{delta'} - |f'(a)|$ where $delta' < delta$ such that $frac{epsilon}{delta'} > |f'(a)|$
This gives us
$ |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon$
The logic behind the proof is that if someone gives asks me to find an appropriate delta for $epsilon = h$, I'll find a delta for $epsilon' = h$, say that delta is equal to $n$. Next I solve for $epsilon'$ using $epsilon' = frac{h}{n} - |f'(a)|$. If on solving I get a negative $epsilon'$, I decrease $delta'$ to a value $n_0$ such that I get a positive value for $epsilon'$ and then get the corresponding delta, $n_1$. The minimum of $n_1$ and $n_0$ would be the required delta.
Please let me know where exactly the proof starts to go wrong. While alternate proofs are appreciated, the main goal here is understanding why this proof is wrong.
EDIT: After thinking about the problem for a while and reading a few of the answers, I found a way to communicate the idea more effectively.
Continuing from $|f(x)-f(a)| < (epsilon' + |f'(a)|) delta$
Now we need to show that we can represent any positive real number, $epsilon$, by taking appropriate values of $delta$ and $epsilon'$. Fix $epsilon' = 1$. Now $delta$ is just $frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|}$. To complete our answer, let one value of $delta$ for $epsilon' = 1$ be $delta_0$. Our final answer would be $delta = min(delta_0,frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|})$
real-analysis epsilon-delta
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
There are some errors.. the derivative must be calculate on a and not in x
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
Fixed, thanks. Is the general idea of the proof correct? Because I haven't really seen the argument I used at the end in any other proof, I'm not sure if it's correct or not.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
No, I think it is wrong because you use the fixed constant epsilon and delta to get the result but I guess that you must use only the variable x.
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Proof:
Let $x$ be a real number, since $f(x)$ is differentiable, or $lim_{x to
a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ exists and is equal to $f'(a)$. So, for any $epsilon' > 0$ there exists a $delta > 0$, such that $0<|x-a| < delta$
$implies |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < epsilon'$
Using the Triangle inequality, we get
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
$implies |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon' delta + |f'(a)| delta$
Here's where I start getting unsure whether my proof is correct or not. This inequality is true for $epsilon'$ = $frac{epsilon}{delta'} - |f'(a)|$ where $delta' < delta$ such that $frac{epsilon}{delta'} > |f'(a)|$
This gives us
$ |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon$
The logic behind the proof is that if someone gives asks me to find an appropriate delta for $epsilon = h$, I'll find a delta for $epsilon' = h$, say that delta is equal to $n$. Next I solve for $epsilon'$ using $epsilon' = frac{h}{n} - |f'(a)|$. If on solving I get a negative $epsilon'$, I decrease $delta'$ to a value $n_0$ such that I get a positive value for $epsilon'$ and then get the corresponding delta, $n_1$. The minimum of $n_1$ and $n_0$ would be the required delta.
Please let me know where exactly the proof starts to go wrong. While alternate proofs are appreciated, the main goal here is understanding why this proof is wrong.
EDIT: After thinking about the problem for a while and reading a few of the answers, I found a way to communicate the idea more effectively.
Continuing from $|f(x)-f(a)| < (epsilon' + |f'(a)|) delta$
Now we need to show that we can represent any positive real number, $epsilon$, by taking appropriate values of $delta$ and $epsilon'$. Fix $epsilon' = 1$. Now $delta$ is just $frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|}$. To complete our answer, let one value of $delta$ for $epsilon' = 1$ be $delta_0$. Our final answer would be $delta = min(delta_0,frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|})$
real-analysis epsilon-delta
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
Proof:
Let $x$ be a real number, since $f(x)$ is differentiable, or $lim_{x to
a} frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ exists and is equal to $f'(a)$. So, for any $epsilon' > 0$ there exists a $delta > 0$, such that $0<|x-a| < delta$
$implies |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < epsilon'$
Using the Triangle inequality, we get
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
$implies |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon' delta + |f'(a)| delta$
Here's where I start getting unsure whether my proof is correct or not. This inequality is true for $epsilon'$ = $frac{epsilon}{delta'} - |f'(a)|$ where $delta' < delta$ such that $frac{epsilon}{delta'} > |f'(a)|$
This gives us
$ |f(x)-f(a)| < epsilon$
The logic behind the proof is that if someone gives asks me to find an appropriate delta for $epsilon = h$, I'll find a delta for $epsilon' = h$, say that delta is equal to $n$. Next I solve for $epsilon'$ using $epsilon' = frac{h}{n} - |f'(a)|$. If on solving I get a negative $epsilon'$, I decrease $delta'$ to a value $n_0$ such that I get a positive value for $epsilon'$ and then get the corresponding delta, $n_1$. The minimum of $n_1$ and $n_0$ would be the required delta.
Please let me know where exactly the proof starts to go wrong. While alternate proofs are appreciated, the main goal here is understanding why this proof is wrong.
EDIT: After thinking about the problem for a while and reading a few of the answers, I found a way to communicate the idea more effectively.
Continuing from $|f(x)-f(a)| < (epsilon' + |f'(a)|) delta$
Now we need to show that we can represent any positive real number, $epsilon$, by taking appropriate values of $delta$ and $epsilon'$. Fix $epsilon' = 1$. Now $delta$ is just $frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|}$. To complete our answer, let one value of $delta$ for $epsilon' = 1$ be $delta_0$. Our final answer would be $delta = min(delta_0,frac{epsilon}{1+|f'(a)|})$
real-analysis epsilon-delta
real-analysis epsilon-delta
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
edited 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
7,28822247
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
asked yesterday
Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
33212
33212
There are some errors.. the derivative must be calculate on a and not in x
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
Fixed, thanks. Is the general idea of the proof correct? Because I haven't really seen the argument I used at the end in any other proof, I'm not sure if it's correct or not.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
No, I think it is wrong because you use the fixed constant epsilon and delta to get the result but I guess that you must use only the variable x.
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
add a comment |
There are some errors.. the derivative must be calculate on a and not in x
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
Fixed, thanks. Is the general idea of the proof correct? Because I haven't really seen the argument I used at the end in any other proof, I'm not sure if it's correct or not.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
No, I think it is wrong because you use the fixed constant epsilon and delta to get the result but I guess that you must use only the variable x.
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
There are some errors.. the derivative must be calculate on a and not in x
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
There are some errors.. the derivative must be calculate on a and not in x
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
Fixed, thanks. Is the general idea of the proof correct? Because I haven't really seen the argument I used at the end in any other proof, I'm not sure if it's correct or not.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
Fixed, thanks. Is the general idea of the proof correct? Because I haven't really seen the argument I used at the end in any other proof, I'm not sure if it's correct or not.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
No, I think it is wrong because you use the fixed constant epsilon and delta to get the result but I guess that you must use only the variable x.
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
No, I think it is wrong because you use the fixed constant epsilon and delta to get the result but I guess that you must use only the variable x.
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
Or just see that
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0}f(x+h)-f(x)=lim_{hrightarrow 0}underbrace{frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}}_{rightarrow f'(x)}h=0.$$
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
2
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
We can simply use the equivalent definition of differentiability
$$f(a+h)=f(a)+f'(a)cdot h +o(h) implies lim_{xto a} f(x)=lim_{hto 0} f(a+h)=f(a)$$
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
so
$ |f(x)-f(a)| <( epsilon' + |f'(a)|)|x-a|$
then for $xto a$ you have that
$|f(x)-f(a)|leq 0$
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The heart of your argument is basically the following. Give me some $epsilon$, and I have to find some $delta$ so that $|f(x)-f(a)|<epsilon$ when $|x-a|<delta$. To start with, I'll just take any $delta$, it doesn't matter. Now, within the range $[a-delta, a+delta]$, the function $xtofrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is bounded, because it's convergent at $a$ and convergent functions are locally bounded - this is a theorem which you essentially spend the first couple of lines of your proof re-proving by way of the value $epsilon'$. So say $lvertfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}rvert<M$ on the interval $[a-delta, a+delta]$. Well then certainly $|f(x)-f(a)|<Mdelta$, and by choosing a sufficiently small $delta$ we can make that less than $epsilon$ (since the $M$ only gets smaller as $delta$ gets smaller).
If you notice, in your own proof, the $epsilon'$ is a bit pointless. Since at the end you're just going to say "and now take $delta$ as small as is necessary to make this true", you may as well initially take $epsilon'=10^{100}$. All that matters is that $epsilon'$ is finite and that $delta$ can be made arbitrarily small, in other words, that the difference quotient is locally bounded. The exact value of the derivative at $a$ also doesn't matter.
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Not quite right. One of the issues is:
I define $epsilon'$ as $frac epsilon delta $
As it stands, this doesn't make sense, because you started the proof by taking an arbitrary $epsilon'$. Perhaps you mean something like: Since this inequality is true for any $epsilon '$, it is true in particular for $frac epsilon delta$ ...
But this doesn't quite make sense either; What's the $delta$ on the right-hand side? This $delta $ may depend on the $epsilon '$ you initially choose.
Try this alternative:
For any $epsilon> 0$ there is a $delta' > 0$, such that whenever $0 < |x-a| < delta'$, one has $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + epsilon$. In particular, there is a $delta_0>0$ such that $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + 1$
Now, choose $delta = min left(delta_0, frac 1 {|f'(a)+1|}right) $
Can you complete the proof from here?
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I try to put your arguments in the right order.
Proof:
Assume that $f$ is differentiable in $a$. So $f'(a)$ exists.
To prove that $f$ is continous in $a$ choose an arbitrary $varepsilon>0.$ Now you can choose $delta_1$ such
$$0<delta_1<frac{varepsilon}{|f'(a)|}, text{ if } f'(a)ne 0$$
$$delta_1=1, text{ if } |f'(a)|=0.$$
So we have
$$0<|f'(a)|<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}$$
and define
$$varepsilon_2=frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}-|f'(a)|>0$$
Because f is differentiable in $a$ we can find a $delta_2$ such that
$$|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < varepsilon_2,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta_2$$
Using the triangle inequality, we get
$$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
So we set
$$delta=min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
and get
$$| f(x)-f(a)| < (varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|) delta_2<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}min(delta_1,delta_2)le varepsilon,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta$$
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
Or just see that
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0}f(x+h)-f(x)=lim_{hrightarrow 0}underbrace{frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}}_{rightarrow f'(x)}h=0.$$
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
2
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Or just see that
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0}f(x+h)-f(x)=lim_{hrightarrow 0}underbrace{frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}}_{rightarrow f'(x)}h=0.$$
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
2
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Or just see that
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0}f(x+h)-f(x)=lim_{hrightarrow 0}underbrace{frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}}_{rightarrow f'(x)}h=0.$$
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
Or just see that
$$lim_{hrightarrow 0}f(x+h)-f(x)=lim_{hrightarrow 0}underbrace{frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}}_{rightarrow f'(x)}h=0.$$
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
answered yesterday
Peter Melech
2,464813
2,464813
2
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
add a comment |
2
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
2
2
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
Nice job latexing.
– djechlin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
We can simply use the equivalent definition of differentiability
$$f(a+h)=f(a)+f'(a)cdot h +o(h) implies lim_{xto a} f(x)=lim_{hto 0} f(a+h)=f(a)$$
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
We can simply use the equivalent definition of differentiability
$$f(a+h)=f(a)+f'(a)cdot h +o(h) implies lim_{xto a} f(x)=lim_{hto 0} f(a+h)=f(a)$$
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
We can simply use the equivalent definition of differentiability
$$f(a+h)=f(a)+f'(a)cdot h +o(h) implies lim_{xto a} f(x)=lim_{hto 0} f(a+h)=f(a)$$
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
We can simply use the equivalent definition of differentiability
$$f(a+h)=f(a)+f'(a)cdot h +o(h) implies lim_{xto a} f(x)=lim_{hto 0} f(a+h)=f(a)$$
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
answered yesterday
gimusi
85.8k74294
85.8k74294
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
Thanks for the answer. I know my proof is long and a bit harder to read, but is it correct? If it isn't, where exactly does it go wrong?
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
@StarPlatinumZAWARUDO It seems really over complicated to me, the implication is avery simple ansd trivial fact. I'll try to look to it more carefully later. Bye
– gimusi
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
so
$ |f(x)-f(a)| <( epsilon' + |f'(a)|)|x-a|$
then for $xto a$ you have that
$|f(x)-f(a)|leq 0$
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
so
$ |f(x)-f(a)| <( epsilon' + |f'(a)|)|x-a|$
then for $xto a$ you have that
$|f(x)-f(a)|leq 0$
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
so
$ |f(x)-f(a)| <( epsilon' + |f'(a)|)|x-a|$
then for $xto a$ you have that
$|f(x)-f(a)|leq 0$
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < epsilon' + |f'(a)|$
so
$ |f(x)-f(a)| <( epsilon' + |f'(a)|)|x-a|$
then for $xto a$ you have that
$|f(x)-f(a)|leq 0$
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
answered yesterday
Federico Fallucca
1,63018
1,63018
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The heart of your argument is basically the following. Give me some $epsilon$, and I have to find some $delta$ so that $|f(x)-f(a)|<epsilon$ when $|x-a|<delta$. To start with, I'll just take any $delta$, it doesn't matter. Now, within the range $[a-delta, a+delta]$, the function $xtofrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is bounded, because it's convergent at $a$ and convergent functions are locally bounded - this is a theorem which you essentially spend the first couple of lines of your proof re-proving by way of the value $epsilon'$. So say $lvertfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}rvert<M$ on the interval $[a-delta, a+delta]$. Well then certainly $|f(x)-f(a)|<Mdelta$, and by choosing a sufficiently small $delta$ we can make that less than $epsilon$ (since the $M$ only gets smaller as $delta$ gets smaller).
If you notice, in your own proof, the $epsilon'$ is a bit pointless. Since at the end you're just going to say "and now take $delta$ as small as is necessary to make this true", you may as well initially take $epsilon'=10^{100}$. All that matters is that $epsilon'$ is finite and that $delta$ can be made arbitrarily small, in other words, that the difference quotient is locally bounded. The exact value of the derivative at $a$ also doesn't matter.
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The heart of your argument is basically the following. Give me some $epsilon$, and I have to find some $delta$ so that $|f(x)-f(a)|<epsilon$ when $|x-a|<delta$. To start with, I'll just take any $delta$, it doesn't matter. Now, within the range $[a-delta, a+delta]$, the function $xtofrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is bounded, because it's convergent at $a$ and convergent functions are locally bounded - this is a theorem which you essentially spend the first couple of lines of your proof re-proving by way of the value $epsilon'$. So say $lvertfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}rvert<M$ on the interval $[a-delta, a+delta]$. Well then certainly $|f(x)-f(a)|<Mdelta$, and by choosing a sufficiently small $delta$ we can make that less than $epsilon$ (since the $M$ only gets smaller as $delta$ gets smaller).
If you notice, in your own proof, the $epsilon'$ is a bit pointless. Since at the end you're just going to say "and now take $delta$ as small as is necessary to make this true", you may as well initially take $epsilon'=10^{100}$. All that matters is that $epsilon'$ is finite and that $delta$ can be made arbitrarily small, in other words, that the difference quotient is locally bounded. The exact value of the derivative at $a$ also doesn't matter.
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The heart of your argument is basically the following. Give me some $epsilon$, and I have to find some $delta$ so that $|f(x)-f(a)|<epsilon$ when $|x-a|<delta$. To start with, I'll just take any $delta$, it doesn't matter. Now, within the range $[a-delta, a+delta]$, the function $xtofrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is bounded, because it's convergent at $a$ and convergent functions are locally bounded - this is a theorem which you essentially spend the first couple of lines of your proof re-proving by way of the value $epsilon'$. So say $lvertfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}rvert<M$ on the interval $[a-delta, a+delta]$. Well then certainly $|f(x)-f(a)|<Mdelta$, and by choosing a sufficiently small $delta$ we can make that less than $epsilon$ (since the $M$ only gets smaller as $delta$ gets smaller).
If you notice, in your own proof, the $epsilon'$ is a bit pointless. Since at the end you're just going to say "and now take $delta$ as small as is necessary to make this true", you may as well initially take $epsilon'=10^{100}$. All that matters is that $epsilon'$ is finite and that $delta$ can be made arbitrarily small, in other words, that the difference quotient is locally bounded. The exact value of the derivative at $a$ also doesn't matter.
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
The heart of your argument is basically the following. Give me some $epsilon$, and I have to find some $delta$ so that $|f(x)-f(a)|<epsilon$ when $|x-a|<delta$. To start with, I'll just take any $delta$, it doesn't matter. Now, within the range $[a-delta, a+delta]$, the function $xtofrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is bounded, because it's convergent at $a$ and convergent functions are locally bounded - this is a theorem which you essentially spend the first couple of lines of your proof re-proving by way of the value $epsilon'$. So say $lvertfrac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}rvert<M$ on the interval $[a-delta, a+delta]$. Well then certainly $|f(x)-f(a)|<Mdelta$, and by choosing a sufficiently small $delta$ we can make that less than $epsilon$ (since the $M$ only gets smaller as $delta$ gets smaller).
If you notice, in your own proof, the $epsilon'$ is a bit pointless. Since at the end you're just going to say "and now take $delta$ as small as is necessary to make this true", you may as well initially take $epsilon'=10^{100}$. All that matters is that $epsilon'$ is finite and that $delta$ can be made arbitrarily small, in other words, that the difference quotient is locally bounded. The exact value of the derivative at $a$ also doesn't matter.
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
answered yesterday
Jack M
18.3k33778
18.3k33778
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Not quite right. One of the issues is:
I define $epsilon'$ as $frac epsilon delta $
As it stands, this doesn't make sense, because you started the proof by taking an arbitrary $epsilon'$. Perhaps you mean something like: Since this inequality is true for any $epsilon '$, it is true in particular for $frac epsilon delta$ ...
But this doesn't quite make sense either; What's the $delta$ on the right-hand side? This $delta $ may depend on the $epsilon '$ you initially choose.
Try this alternative:
For any $epsilon> 0$ there is a $delta' > 0$, such that whenever $0 < |x-a| < delta'$, one has $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + epsilon$. In particular, there is a $delta_0>0$ such that $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + 1$
Now, choose $delta = min left(delta_0, frac 1 {|f'(a)+1|}right) $
Can you complete the proof from here?
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Not quite right. One of the issues is:
I define $epsilon'$ as $frac epsilon delta $
As it stands, this doesn't make sense, because you started the proof by taking an arbitrary $epsilon'$. Perhaps you mean something like: Since this inequality is true for any $epsilon '$, it is true in particular for $frac epsilon delta$ ...
But this doesn't quite make sense either; What's the $delta$ on the right-hand side? This $delta $ may depend on the $epsilon '$ you initially choose.
Try this alternative:
For any $epsilon> 0$ there is a $delta' > 0$, such that whenever $0 < |x-a| < delta'$, one has $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + epsilon$. In particular, there is a $delta_0>0$ such that $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + 1$
Now, choose $delta = min left(delta_0, frac 1 {|f'(a)+1|}right) $
Can you complete the proof from here?
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Not quite right. One of the issues is:
I define $epsilon'$ as $frac epsilon delta $
As it stands, this doesn't make sense, because you started the proof by taking an arbitrary $epsilon'$. Perhaps you mean something like: Since this inequality is true for any $epsilon '$, it is true in particular for $frac epsilon delta$ ...
But this doesn't quite make sense either; What's the $delta$ on the right-hand side? This $delta $ may depend on the $epsilon '$ you initially choose.
Try this alternative:
For any $epsilon> 0$ there is a $delta' > 0$, such that whenever $0 < |x-a| < delta'$, one has $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + epsilon$. In particular, there is a $delta_0>0$ such that $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + 1$
Now, choose $delta = min left(delta_0, frac 1 {|f'(a)+1|}right) $
Can you complete the proof from here?
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
Not quite right. One of the issues is:
I define $epsilon'$ as $frac epsilon delta $
As it stands, this doesn't make sense, because you started the proof by taking an arbitrary $epsilon'$. Perhaps you mean something like: Since this inequality is true for any $epsilon '$, it is true in particular for $frac epsilon delta$ ...
But this doesn't quite make sense either; What's the $delta$ on the right-hand side? This $delta $ may depend on the $epsilon '$ you initially choose.
Try this alternative:
For any $epsilon> 0$ there is a $delta' > 0$, such that whenever $0 < |x-a| < delta'$, one has $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + epsilon$. In particular, there is a $delta_0>0$ such that $left|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}right| < |f'(a)| + 1$
Now, choose $delta = min left(delta_0, frac 1 {|f'(a)+1|}right) $
Can you complete the proof from here?
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
edited yesterday
miracle173
7,28822247
7,28822247
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
answered yesterday
Praneet Srivastava
762516
762516
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
add a comment |
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
I've made a few edits to the ending paragraphs to make it a bit easier to understand what I'm trying to say.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I try to put your arguments in the right order.
Proof:
Assume that $f$ is differentiable in $a$. So $f'(a)$ exists.
To prove that $f$ is continous in $a$ choose an arbitrary $varepsilon>0.$ Now you can choose $delta_1$ such
$$0<delta_1<frac{varepsilon}{|f'(a)|}, text{ if } f'(a)ne 0$$
$$delta_1=1, text{ if } |f'(a)|=0.$$
So we have
$$0<|f'(a)|<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}$$
and define
$$varepsilon_2=frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}-|f'(a)|>0$$
Because f is differentiable in $a$ we can find a $delta_2$ such that
$$|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < varepsilon_2,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta_2$$
Using the triangle inequality, we get
$$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
So we set
$$delta=min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
and get
$$| f(x)-f(a)| < (varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|) delta_2<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}min(delta_1,delta_2)le varepsilon,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta$$
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I try to put your arguments in the right order.
Proof:
Assume that $f$ is differentiable in $a$. So $f'(a)$ exists.
To prove that $f$ is continous in $a$ choose an arbitrary $varepsilon>0.$ Now you can choose $delta_1$ such
$$0<delta_1<frac{varepsilon}{|f'(a)|}, text{ if } f'(a)ne 0$$
$$delta_1=1, text{ if } |f'(a)|=0.$$
So we have
$$0<|f'(a)|<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}$$
and define
$$varepsilon_2=frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}-|f'(a)|>0$$
Because f is differentiable in $a$ we can find a $delta_2$ such that
$$|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < varepsilon_2,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta_2$$
Using the triangle inequality, we get
$$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
So we set
$$delta=min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
and get
$$| f(x)-f(a)| < (varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|) delta_2<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}min(delta_1,delta_2)le varepsilon,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta$$
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I try to put your arguments in the right order.
Proof:
Assume that $f$ is differentiable in $a$. So $f'(a)$ exists.
To prove that $f$ is continous in $a$ choose an arbitrary $varepsilon>0.$ Now you can choose $delta_1$ such
$$0<delta_1<frac{varepsilon}{|f'(a)|}, text{ if } f'(a)ne 0$$
$$delta_1=1, text{ if } |f'(a)|=0.$$
So we have
$$0<|f'(a)|<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}$$
and define
$$varepsilon_2=frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}-|f'(a)|>0$$
Because f is differentiable in $a$ we can find a $delta_2$ such that
$$|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < varepsilon_2,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta_2$$
Using the triangle inequality, we get
$$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
So we set
$$delta=min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
and get
$$| f(x)-f(a)| < (varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|) delta_2<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}min(delta_1,delta_2)le varepsilon,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta$$
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
I try to put your arguments in the right order.
Proof:
Assume that $f$ is differentiable in $a$. So $f'(a)$ exists.
To prove that $f$ is continous in $a$ choose an arbitrary $varepsilon>0.$ Now you can choose $delta_1$ such
$$0<delta_1<frac{varepsilon}{|f'(a)|}, text{ if } f'(a)ne 0$$
$$delta_1=1, text{ if } |f'(a)|=0.$$
So we have
$$0<|f'(a)|<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}$$
and define
$$varepsilon_2=frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}-|f'(a)|>0$$
Because f is differentiable in $a$ we can find a $delta_2$ such that
$$|frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} - f'(a)| < varepsilon_2,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta_2$$
Using the triangle inequality, we get
$$ |frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}| < varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
So we set
$$delta=min(delta_1,delta_2)$$
and get
$$| f(x)-f(a)| < (varepsilon_2 + |f'(a)|) delta_2<frac{varepsilon}{delta_1}min(delta_1,delta_2)le varepsilon,; forall x: 0<|x-a|<delta$$
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
edited 17 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
answered 23 hours ago
miracle173
7,28822247
7,28822247
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%2f3005021%2fproof-verification-differentiability-implies-continuity%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
There are some errors.. the derivative must be calculate on a and not in x
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday
Fixed, thanks. Is the general idea of the proof correct? Because I haven't really seen the argument I used at the end in any other proof, I'm not sure if it's correct or not.
– Star Platinum ZA WARUDO
yesterday
No, I think it is wrong because you use the fixed constant epsilon and delta to get the result but I guess that you must use only the variable x.
– Federico Fallucca
yesterday