0

In the epsilon-delta proof for $\lim\limits_{x \to 0} \frac{\sin(x)}{x}$, we can show that for $|x| < 1$, $|\frac{\sin(x)}{x}| < \frac{x^2}{6}$. We can set $\delta = \sqrt{6\epsilon}$ and complete the proof. During the proof, $\delta$ is taken to be the minimum of $\sqrt{6\epsilon}$ and $1$. Why is $\delta$ defined this way, and why is 1 included in the definition of $\delta$? What would go wrong if $\delta$ is just $\sqrt{6 \epsilon}$? Can we use another number other than $1$?

Update:

So now I understand that in the proof, $\delta=\sqrt{6\epsilon}$ is guaranteed to work when $|x|<1$. So we need to deal with the case when $|x| \geq 1$. We want to choose a $\delta$ such that $|x| < \delta$ still yields $$\left|\frac{\sin(x)}{x} - 1\right| = |\frac{x^2}{3!} - \frac{x^4}{5!} + \frac{x^6}{7!} - \frac{x^8}{9!} + \frac{x^{10}}{11!} - \cdots | < \frac{x^2}{6} < \epsilon$$

My question is how do we deal with this case? If there is an upper bound on $\delta$, how do we find it? What is a formal proof?

Also, for $|x| \geq 1$ are we just saying that $\delta = 1$ works or is it actually the case that we are taking $\delta = \min(1, \sqrt{6\epsilon})$? If we set $\delta=1$, note that $|x| < 1$ would be false, so the whole statement $$0<|x|<\delta \Rightarrow \left|\frac{\sin(x)}{x}-1\right| < \epsilon$$ would be vacuously true.

Josh
  • 1,086
  • 4
  • 15
  • Because when $|x|>1,$ you don't know the coefficients are decreasing in absolute value, so you don't know that the value of the series is greater than the 2nd partial sum. – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:15
  • is the choice of $1$ arbitrary or it is because $1$ is the radius of convergence? Also based on the argument, $\delta < 1$ and $\delta < \sqrt{6\epsilon}$. The latter is obvious. Why do we have former one too: $\delta < 1$? – Josh Jan 13 '23 at 20:18
  • In particular, if $x^6/7!>x^4/120$ then it is possible for $1-\frac{\sin x}x>x^2/6.$ So you really need $x^2\leq 42,$ I think. So $1$ isn't necessary, we could use $\sqrt{42}.$ – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:20
  • The radius of convergence is $+\infty$, but one would need to prove that. See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/577676/why-is-sinx-x-fracx33-fracx55-cdots-for-all-x – Andrei Jan 13 '23 at 20:20
  • Well, $\delta\leq 1$ is all we really need. – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:20
  • When I said $1$ is the radius of convergence, I really meant to say that $|x|<1$ is the radius in which the alternating series is decreasing. I should have been more precise. Otherwise, I know that the radius of convergence is $+\infty$. – Josh Jan 13 '23 at 20:25
  • The radius of convergence isn't relevant. What the proof is using is that if $a_n$ is a positive decreasing sequence converging to $0,$ then $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^na_n$ converges, and it's value is in the interval $[a_0-a_1,a_1].$ When $a_n=\frac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!},$ the theorem only applies for decreasing $a_n,$ and this is not decreasing for all $x.$ But it is obviously decreasing for $|x|\leq 1.$ – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:26
  • But $1$ isn't necessarily the only value you can use, it is just really obvious the terms are decreasing in absolute value for $|x|<1.$ You don't need to figure out the best $\delta.$ You can almost certain use $\sqrt 6$ instead of $1.$ – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:27
  • So suppose that $|x| \leq a$ where $a > 0$. Then do we always include $a$ as a possible choice for $\delta$? Did we choose $1$ here because $|x| < 1$? or Could I have taken any non-zero value for $\delta$, and the proof would have gone ahead fine? – Josh Jan 13 '23 at 20:29
  • Say $\delta = \min(\sqrt{6\epsilon}, 0.01)$. Would it also work fine? – Josh Jan 13 '23 at 20:30
  • "Did we choose $1$ here because $|x|<1.$" What does that even mean? We are choosing $\delta$ so that if $|x-0|<\delta,$ the alternating series argument applies. One easy way to ensure that is if $\delta\leq1.$ – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:31
  • Oh, yes, any smaller $\delta$ always works in any limit proof. If $\delta$ works , then so does any smaller positive value $\delta'<\delta.$ That's because when $|x-a|<\delta'$ then $|x-a|<\delta.$ – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:32
  • "Did we choose 1 here because |x|<1?" means that "are we passing $1$ as possible choice in $\delta = \min(1, \sqrt{6\epsilon})$ because $|x|<1$?" That is what I was trying to ask. – Josh Jan 13 '23 at 20:35
  • "becuase $|x|<1$" is the part that doesn't make sense. $|x|<1$ is something we want, not something we are given, because $|x|<1$ ensures that we can use the alternating series argument. We could have used $\sqrt6$ to ensure the alternating series argument worked, but it would take a little more work to ensure it was decreasing, and we don't need the best $\delta,$ just any $\delta$ that works. – Thomas Andrews Jan 13 '23 at 20:45
  • So what I am understanding now is that $\delta = \sqrt{6\epsilon}$ to deal with the case $|x| < 1$. To deal with $|x| \geq 1$, we also want to find a $\delta$ such that $0 < |x| < \delta \Rightarrow |\frac{\sin(x)}{x}| < x^2/6 < \epsilon$. We are saying that $\delta=1$ works. It seems like $\delta$ must have an upper bound in this case. How do we find such an upper bound? One of the comments argued that $\delta < \sqrt{42}$ works because it assures $\frac{x^4}{5!} \geq \frac{x^6}{7!}$. Why don't we consider $\frac{x^2}{3!} \geq \frac{x^4}{5!}$. What is the upper bound on $\delta$? – Josh Jan 13 '23 at 21:19

2 Answers2

1

A common aspect when writing limit proofs is we often tend to write the proof backwards.

That is, we explain how he found a $\delta$ that works.

But that is more a communication style, showing how we found a value.

The formal way to prove the limit need no "how we found it" argument, we just start with:

Given $\epsilon>0$ let $\delta=\min(\sqrt{6\epsilon},1).$

From there, we note that if $|x-0|<\delta$ then $|x|<1$ and thus we make the argument about alternating decreasing sequences, so we get:

$$1\geq \frac{\sin x}{x}\geq 1-\frac{x^2}6.\tag1$$

So:

$$0\leq 1-\frac{\sin x}{x}\leq \frac{x^2}6.$$

But because $|x|< \delta,$ we also have $|x|<\sqrt{6\epsilon}$ so $\frac{x^2}6<\epsilon.$

So $\delta$ works.

We used $1$ because it is really obvious that $\frac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$ is decreasing when $|x|<1.$

But we could also have used $\delta=\min(\sqrt 6,\sqrt{6\epsilon}).$ It just would have required more work to prove the alternating sequence rule applies.


In general, in any limit proof, if $\delta>0$ works, then any smaller positive $\delta'$ works too. The $\delta$ you find is always one of an infinite set of possible values that work. To prove a limit, you don't need the "best" $\delta,$ just one of the infinite possible values.

We usually pick a $\delta$ that makes our argument simplest, so we use $\min(1,\dots)$ here when $\min(2,\dots)$ would work, to make our argument easier.

But we can't just use $\delta=\sqrt{6\epsilon}$ because there can be values in $|x|<\delta$ where the alternating sum argument won't work.

I think you could use $\delta=\min(\sqrt{20},\sqrt{6\epsilon})$ and still get a proof, although the series doesn't always decrease in the first two terms for all $x$ in the range. I believe ou can still show $(1)$ is true, which is all you really need, but the proof is a bit more complicated.

So $1$ is chosen just to make our life easier. We could have used $2$ or $\sqrt{20}$ or $1/1000000$ or $1/\pi.$ But $1$ makes our argument simple, so we choose that.

Thomas Andrews
  • 177,126
0

For $|x| \leq 1$, we argue that $\left| \frac{\sin(x)}{x} -1 \right| < \frac{x^2}{6}$. So if $\epsilon > \frac{x^2}{6}$ we can conlcude that $|x| < \sqrt{6\epsilon}$. Note that it is really true for $|x|=1$, but the endpoints need to be checked separately. So this argument only works for when $|x| \leq 1$. What about $|x| > 1$? We don't know yet.

To prove $\left| \frac{\sin(x)}{x} -1 \right| < \frac{x^2}{6}$, an argument was used that involved converging alternating series. That is $$\left| \frac{\sin(x)}{x} -1 \right| = \left| \frac{x^2}{3!} - \frac{x^4}{5!} + \frac{x^6}{7!} - \cdots \right| < \frac{x^2}{6}$$ But when $|x| > 1$, we cannot be certain this statement is true so we have to find an alternative (interestingly, I am almost certain that $\left| \frac{\sin(x)}{x} -1 \right| < \frac{x^2}{6}$ is true for all non-zero $x$ but we did not prove this so we cannot use this).

So let $|x|>1$. Let $\delta = 1$. Then $|x| < 1 = \delta$ is false, since $|x| > 1$. Therefore the statement $$0<x<\delta \Rightarrow |f(x)-L| < \epsilon$$ is vacuously true.

So from $|x| \leq 1$, we have $\delta = \sqrt{6\epsilon}$ and from $|x| > 1$ we have $\delta < 1$. Let $\delta=\min(\sqrt{6\epsilon}, 1)$, then we can be certain that

$|x|<1$, which in fact implies that $\left| \frac{\sin(x)}{x} - L \right| < \frac{x^2}{6} < \frac{\left(\sqrt{6\epsilon}\right)^2}{6} = \epsilon$, and we are done.

The takeaway message is that, if we look at this argument abstractly, it goes something like:

Let $a \in \mathbb R$ and $a > 0$. Let $x \leq a$. Assume that it can be shown that $|f(x) - L| < g(x)$, where $g(x)$ is some function that has some desirable properties in the context of the specific problem that is being solved. Let $\epsilon > g(x)$. Again assume that by some simplification, it can be shown that $|x| < \delta(\epsilon)$.

Then for $|x| > a$, let $\delta = a$. There is no $x$ that satisfies the inequality $|x| < a$, so it follows that $$|x| < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L| < \epsilon$$ The specific values of $f(x)$ and $L$ are not important in this case.

Let $\delta = \min(\delta(\epsilon), a)$. Then $$|x| < \delta \leq \delta(\epsilon) \Rightarrow |f(x) - L| < \epsilon$$

The fact that $1$ is the obvious choice in this example is because it was shown for $|x| \leq 1$, we can find $\delta$ such that $|f(x)-L|<\epsilon$. This was the most challenging part of the proof, so the fact that for $|x|>1$, we can just take $\delta=1$ and the implication being vacuously true may sound a bit like cheating, but it is the reward of the hardwork of the first part.

A more challenging question to ask would be:

Can we pick a larger value for $\delta$ when $|x|>1$? In this case we know the answer is yes. And If so, how large can it be? The answer to these questions are not obvious in general. Actually, the answer to the latter question for this specific example is not so obvious unlike the former one (I would appreciate if someone can provide a full proof of this).

But the definition of $\epsilon$-$\delta$ is not concerned with the optimal values of $\delta$. We just have to find a $\delta$ that works.

Josh
  • 1,086
  • 4
  • 15