5

In most (all?) proofs of continuity of polynomials ($x^2, x^3$, etc), for example in Max Rosenlicht's book (http://www.math.pitt.edu/~frank/pittanal2121.pdf, page 97), the usual trick is to get to the expression $$ |x-a||x+a| $$ and then bound $|x-a|$ by 1, which is then used to bound $|x+a|$ and then obtain $\delta = \min \{1, \frac{\epsilon}{2a +1} \}$.

This baffles me even after numerous attempts. My questions are:

1) Why 1? What will change if I chose a different value?

2) Why do we need this other 'smaller' bound at all?

I realize the question is not particularly challenging, but afte numerous attempts I still can't get my head around it.

Alex
  • 19,262
  • By the way, I don't think that is a feature of "most" proofs that polynomials are continuous. I would say it is more common to prove that constant functions are continuous, the identity function is continuous, and the product and sum of two continuous functions are again continous. Continuity of polynomials then follows for free. – hmakholm left over Monica Jan 31 '15 at 23:34
  • 1
    That's interesting. Could you point me to the source, I'm not sure I've seen it before. – Alex Feb 01 '15 at 13:30

2 Answers2

4

In general, the $\delta$ is given in such a way that can give us enough conditions to get $|f(x)-L|<\epsilon$. More generally, the method (or strategy) is:

1) To transform an expression like $|f(x)-L|$ into a expression like $|x-a||g(x)|$ where $|g(x)|\leq M$ for all $x$,

2) Then use the inequality $$|x-a||g(x)|\leq M|x-a|<\epsilon$$ (because the case with $M|x-a|<\epsilon$ is an easy one!).

So, in your example, note that your $\delta$ given is such that $\delta = min \{1, \dfrac{\epsilon}{2|a|+1} \}$. Let's analize this one.

It has two "parameters", one is 1, and another is $\dfrac{\epsilon}{2|a|+1}$. The first parameter 1 is neccesary for bounding |g(x)| and the other "parameter" is necessary for get the $\epsilon$.

Let's take an example. (It´s the classical one, but I'm going to explain you the tricks)

Suppose that you are asked to proof that $$\lim_{x \to a}{x^2}=a^2$$

Then we start by making a preliminar analysis, ie.

$|x^2-a^2|=|(x-a)(x+a)|=|x-a||x+a|$ and note that this has the form of $|x-a||g(x)|$ (with g(x) = x+a). Now we want to find an M>0 such that $|g(x)|=|x+a| \leq M$

To achieve this, let´s say that $|x-a|<1$ (It can be another positive value, but the easiest positive value is nearly always 1). Then we are going to construct our g(x) from here, i.e.

$|x-a|<1$ implies that $-1<x-a<1$, then $-1+2a<x+a<1+2a$, therefore $|x+a|<1+2|a|$ (you can check the details). AND NOTE that the M that we are looking for is $|x+a|=|g(x)|\leq M=1+2|a|$. Also note that a is fixed, so M is a fixed constant.

So we already have that $$|x-a||x+a|=|x-a||g(x)| \leq |x-a| M = |x-a|(1+2|a|)$$. (Note that our chosen 1, let us bound g(x))

NOW WE WANT THAT LESS THAN EPSILON.

So the plan is simple, we should make $|x-a|<\dfrac{\epsilon}{1+2|a|}$. Next, we have $$|x-a||x+a|=|x-a||g(x)| \leq |x-a| M = |x-a|(1+2|a|)<\dfrac{\epsilon}{1+2|a|}(1+2|a|)=\epsilon$$

That's why our $\delta$ should be $\delta = min \{1, \dfrac{\epsilon}{2|a|+1} \}$. The $1$ bounds our $|g(x)|$ and the $\dfrac{\epsilon}{1+2|a|}$ makes the cancelation posible to get the $\epsilon$. You can say that the $\delta$ has enough conditions (in this case, just two conditions) to solve the problem.

Now the proof will be:

PROOF: Let $\epsilon >0$. Let's take $\delta = min\{1,\dfrac{\epsilon}{2|a|+1} \}$.

If $|x-a|<\delta$, then $|x-a|<1$ and $|x-a|<\dfrac{\epsilon}{2|a|+1}$, therefore $-1<x-a<1$, so $-1+2a<x+a<1+2a$, and we can say that $|x+a|<1 + 2|a|$. (you can check the little details)

Now, note that $$|x^2-a^2|=|(x-a)(x+a)|=|x+a||x-a|<(1+2|a|)\left(\dfrac{\epsilon}{1+2|a|}\right)= \epsilon$$

I hope this may help.

HeMan
  • 3,119
  • 1
    Confusion #1: 'let's say |x-a|<1', so if I chose a different constant, I'll get a different bound for $\delta$, (e.g. $\delta = \frac{\epsilon}{15 + 2|a|}$, so the bound of $\delta$ depends on this constant, making the results somewhat ambiguous – Alex Feb 02 '15 at 11:32
  • Confusion #2: If I instead decide to bound $|x+1|<1$, then the bound on $|x-1|$ becomes $\frac{1}{1- 2|a|}$, which brings me back to the question: where should I start to make the result rigorous? – Alex Feb 02 '15 at 11:34
  • 1
    Yes, if you choose a different bound for $\delta$ you are going to get a different bound for $|x+a|$ but that´s no problem and no lacks of rigour, because $|x+a|$ always gets bounded because it's preimage it's an interval. It is like saying "oh well, this function is already on an interval, so let´s take advantage of that and let's choose an smaller interval that give me enough conditions to solve my problem". So you only need an $M>0$ such that $|x+a| \leq M|$, nobody says that this M should be unique. – HeMan Feb 02 '15 at 17:08
  • 1
    Another thing, the text upwards is not the proof of the limit, it is just the preliminar analysis aimed to get enough conditions for an $\delta$ to work. The proof will be something like "Let $\epsilon >0$. Let $\delta = min...$ We are going to prove that $|x-a|<\delta$ implies that $|f(x)-l|< \epsilon $"... – HeMan Feb 02 '15 at 17:10
  • Anyway, I already put the proof upwards so you can check why this $\delta$ works. – HeMan Feb 02 '15 at 17:42
3

1) You can bound $\delta$ by any factor (most times), it does not have to be $1$. We take the number $1$ because we're such lazy people and $1$ is nice: $1 \cdot {\rm anything} = {\rm anything}$. However, you must be careful when dealing with functions like $1/x$. It is not safe to bound $\delta$ by $1$, if $a = 1/2$, say, because the interval $(-1/2,1/2)$ contains $x = 0$, for which the function is not defined. Meaning, the bound is too weak. For polynomials like $x^2$, this does not happen.

2) I, particularly, don't know another efficient strategy for proving continuity and limits by $\epsilon$'s and $\delta$'s. The idea of continuity is that the function doesn't varies too much near the point in question, if the function is continuous, if $x$ doesn't goes too far from $a$, then $f(x)$ won't go too far from $f(a)$. Formalizing this "$x$ doesn't goes too far from $a$" precisely is exactly placing a bound in $\delta$ (and hence in $|x-a|$).

I have made two examples of proofs by epsilons and deltas here, just like the book you're using, and I invite you to rewrite them using $2$ instead of $1$ for a bound, to get the feeling of it. I hope my answer helps you, even a little bit. And good question, by the way.

Ivo Terek
  • 77,665
  • Thanks Ivo. So it pretty much boils down to convenience - just like proving that $|f(x)-L|< \varepsilon$ is identical to proving it's less by $2 \varepsilon$, but the former is considered more 'convenient' – Alex Feb 01 '15 at 17:27
  • Exactly! ${}{}$ – Ivo Terek Feb 01 '15 at 20:49
  • My confusion is, $\delta$ depends not only on $\epsilon$ now, but also on this arbitrarily chosen constant, hence for different constants the result will be different too... – Alex Feb 02 '15 at 11:36
  • "For every $\epsilon > 0$, exists $\delta > 0 $..." Delta is not unique. You only have to find one. – Ivo Terek Feb 02 '15 at 11:57
  • In other words, we need 1 (or an other constant) for casees when $\epsilon$ is chosen so large we can't find a matching $\delta(\epsilon)$ ? – Alex Feb 04 '15 at 10:12
  • 2
    Yes, you can think this way. Take, for example, a situation where we choose $\delta = \min{1, \epsilon/3}$, say. If $\epsilon$ is so large (greater than $3$, say), the delta we would pick would be greater than $1$, but this just wouldn't suffice to bound $|x-a|$ enough, we wouldn't get to the point where we would use $\delta \leq \epsilon/3$. – Ivo Terek Feb 04 '15 at 10:17
  • Thanks. Do you know an example with multiple values for $\delta$ maybe? I mean $\delta_1$ for $a<\epsilon<b$, $\delta_2$ for $b <\epsilon<c$ etc. – Alex Feb 05 '15 at 00:03
  • 2
    Sure, we can build one. $f: \Bbb R \to \Bbb R,$ given by $$f(x) = \begin{cases} 1,& \text{if } x < 1 \ |x|,& \text{if } -1 \leq x \leq 1 \ x^2, & \text{if }x > 1\end{cases}.$$ – Ivo Terek Feb 05 '15 at 00:05