Integrate
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2018
- Messages
- 118
It's an odd numbered exercise.View attachment 34607
I know I am supposed to show my work before submitting a question but I for the life of me just don't even know how to absorb this question.
This was in rogawski's summary and I don't remember a single question like this in the limits chapter.
Can I get a nudge in the right direction?
Thanks for your comment.@Steven G
Analysis is not my strong suit. I studied it almost sixty years ago, did not like it, and never had any practical use for it. So my criticism may be inane.
One clause strikes me as outright wrong, but I suspect it is irrelevant. "Not the same 1 as the limit of f(x)/g(x)" makes no sense. One is a number, and many things may equal 1. But one does not come in flavors.
Another thing strikes me as unclear. I can see that C is necessarily positive. But is C necessarily [imath]\le[/imath] 1? What if g(x) is negative in the given interval. In short I see what you are doing, but it works only if C does not exceed 1. And the logic seems to assume that [imath]g(x) = |g(x)|[/imath]. As I said, my comments may be inane
OK. I get it.Thanks for your comment.
As for the issue with 1--I am just trying to say that I did not pick 1 because one of the limits equaled 1. It was just a coincidence.
I do not think it is in the spirit of this kind of proof to put any constraint on [imath]\epsilon[/imath], which is supposed to be an arbitrary positive number (if I remember any of this correctly). By definition, C is positive. Obviously, if C does not exceed 1, [imath]C\epsilon \le \epsilon[/imath][math][/math] But there is no guarantee that either [imath]\delta_1[/imath] or [imath]\delta_2[/imath] are below 1. That will depend on [imath]\epsilon[/imath]. Perhaps all you need to do to address this is to defineSince Cϵ is just another positive number, why do you think that Cϵ>ϵ can't work? I think that is wrong for the following reason. Why can't my epsilon be ϵ/C, so C times epsilon would be, well ϵ.
This is where I I got confused. You said that you were doing this without cases. But I did not see how you addressed the changes involved in an inequality when dividing it by a possibly negative number coupled with absolute values. In fact, it looks as though the problem arises when g(x) > 0. I have now worked out (hopefully without a blunder) what was worrying my intuition.The more I think about it, it seems fine. I too am not too strong with analysis so I might be wrong and would like to read your reply to this.
I do not see where I am saying that |g(x)| = g(x). Can you state where/why you think that I am using that fact?
See proof #4.Thanks for your comment.
As for the issue with 1--I am just trying to say that I did not pick 1 because one of the limits equaled 1. It was just a coincidence.
Since Cϵ is just another positive number, why do you think that Cϵ>ϵ can't work? I think that is wrong for the following reason. Why can't my epsilon be ϵ/C, so C times epsilon would be, well ϵ. The more I think about it, it seems fine. I too am not too strong with analysis so I might be wrong and would like to read your reply to this.
I do not see where I am saying that |g(x)| = g(x). Can you state where/why you think that I am using that fact?
Thanks!
Steven
I still think that you cannot use something you need in the establishment of delta to set epsilon. My recollection is that epsilon is a constant that is totally arbitrary. You cannot make it suit your convenience. But as I said, my recollection of analysis is hazy.Jeff,
Epsilon can be any positive number. Fair enough, we want epsilon to be small. Even if C>1 (or C>>1), Cϵ can still be as small as you like by adjusting ϵ. Since epsilon is any positive number, epsilon can be say 5ϵ', where ϵ' is any positive real number.
I need to look at the fact that I used A. I need to also take into account both A and B to compute C.
Something just came up and I can't look into for a few hours.
Thanks for you time and input.
Steve
So like. How did you know to do this?[math]f(x) = g(x)\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}[/math]
Two common techniques are to multiply by one in a helpful form or to add zero in a helpful form.So like. How did you know to do this?
It seems to me that they tell you exactly what to do:So like. How did you know to do this?
[imath]f(x) = g(x)\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}[/imath]
That's so incredibly obvious and makes this problem so much easier. Saddens me that I can't read questions correctly.That means, do this: