prove, using the definition of limit that lim(x approaches -2) x^3=-8
The limit: \[ \lim_{x\to a}f(x) = L \]is defined as: \[ \forall \epsilon>0\;\exists\delta>0\quad\forall x:\;0\lt |x-a|\lt\delta\implies |f(x)-L|\lt \epsilon \]That is to say, For any arbitrary \(\epsilon\) range You must provide a method of finding a \(\delta\) range such that: For any \(x\) is in the \(\delta\) range of \(a\):\[ a-\delta \lt x \lt a+\delta \]Every \(f(x)\) must be within the \(\epsilon\) range of \(L\):\[ L-\epsilon\lt f(x) \lt L+\epsilon \]In general, the method is some function \(g(\epsilon)\) which returns a valid \(\delta\).
\[ \lim_{x\to (-2)}x^3 = (-8) \]is defined as: \[ \epsilon>0\;\exists\delta>0\quad\forall x:\;0\lt |x- (-2)|\lt\delta\implies |x^3 - (-8)|\lt \epsilon \]
\[ \begin{array}{rcl} \forall \epsilon>0\;\exists\delta>0\quad\forall x:\; \\ \\ 0\lt |x- (-2)|\lt\delta &\implies& |x^3 - (-8)|\lt \epsilon \\ 0\lt |x + 2|\lt\delta &\implies& |x^3 + 8|\lt \epsilon \\ 0\lt |x + 2|\lt\delta &\implies& |x +2||x^2-2x+ 4|\lt \epsilon \\ \end{array} \]
One thing to take note is that: \[ |x^2-2x+4| = x^2-2x+4 \]Because it is always positive. Now the trick here is we can't simply say \[ g(\epsilon) = \frac{\epsilon}{x^2-2x+4} \]Our method \(g\) must be independent of \(x\).
However, one thing we have on our side is that we can let \(\delta\) smaller than it needs to be.
We can also use the minimum function.
Suppose we let \(\delta = 1\):\[ \begin{array}{rcccl} 0 &<& |x+2| &<& 1 \\ -1 &<& x+2 &<& 1 \\ -3 &<& x &<& -1 \\ \end{array} \\ \]What happens to \(x^2-2x+4\)?\[ (-3)^2-2(-3)+4 = 19 \\ (-1)^2-2(-1)+4 = 5 \] Remember that we want to minimize \(\delta\) To do so we must to maximize \(x^2-2x+4\), because it is in the denominator. When \(1\) is our delta range, we know that \(19\) is the highest \(x^2-2x+4\) will be. So we let: \[ g(\epsilon) = \frac{\epsilon}{\max(x^2-2x+4)}=\frac{\epsilon}{19} \]There is one issue here though: \(19\) is only the max when \(\delta=1\) and thus \(-3<x<-1\). How about when \(\delta > 1\)? The solution is the minimum function! Never let \(\delta>1\) be the case! No one is forcing us to chose \(\delta > 1\). \[ \delta = g(\epsilon) = \min\left(1,\frac{\epsilon}{19}\right) \] And this concludes the proof.
@Opcode Tell me what you think.
Which part doesn't make sense or is hard to follow?
I probably should have written: \[ |x+2||x^2-2x+4| < \delta |x^2-2x+4| < \epsilon \implies \delta < \frac{\epsilon}{|x^2-2x+4|} \]
@abb0t Want to double check?
The last part is how I usually write it. But damn, that's a lot of work! Lol. Nicely done though.
The tricky part of these proofs is you can't let \(\delta\) be a function of \(x\).
If you could, then you would be able to prove false things.
Lol. Let me start from the top.
Where did the \(x^2+2x-4\) come from?
\[ x^3+8 = (x+2)(x^2-2x+4) \]
\[ (a^3+b^3) = (a+b)(a^2-ab+b^2) \]
I don't think i'm understanding the min/ max portion of it. Because you're only really concerned with what's going on around x = -2 and you already have something familiar. And I think you already have a term that's familiar on the right. If i'm following your steps correctly.
Well suppose they chose \(\epsilon = 10000\)
We don't want to choose \(\delta = 10000/19\) because it's too big a range.
Essentially it is protecting use from big epsilon having us pick too big a delta.
\[ |x+2| < 10000/19 \implies -10000/19<x < 10000/19-2 \]If we plug \(10000/19\) (which is now allowed) into \(|x^3 + 8| < 10000\) We find out it is false...
Whoops... \(10000/19-3\) is now allowed, I mean.
That's why we just want to say \(\delta =1\). =]
uh...potato?
The \(\min\) part is really only there for rigor. At some point we need to say "Let's not get any further from \(-2\) than this"
The \(\min\) is just saying let's got get really far away from \(x\) because to doesn't matter past that point.
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!