Proving a Function is Continuous Using Epsilon Delta

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
  • Forums
  • Homework Help
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help

Help on epsilon delta proof of discontinuity

  • Thread starter dillingertaco
  • Start date

Homework Statement


Prove the function f(x)= { 4 if x=0; x^2 otherwise
is discontinuous at 0 using epsilon delta.

Homework Equations


definiton of discontinuity in this case:
there exists an e>0 such that for all d>0 if |x-0|<d, |x^2-4|>e

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm confused because if we include ALL delta >0, eventually (namely, x around +/- 2) |x^2-4| will be less than e for all e>0 which seems to me to point to it being continuous at 0 when it clearly is NOT. Is there something built into the definition that ignores large values of delta which makes the interval around x too large?

So my way:
Assume it is continuous at 0. Let e=1
Then |x^-4|<1 when |x|<d for some d.

From here I want to say d<1 and so |x^2-4|>2 for all |x|<d which would be the contradiction but I don't think that's how I formally say it...

Answers and Replies

Hi dillingertaco! :smile:

Homework Statement


Prove the function f(x)= { 4 if x=0; x^2 otherwise
is discontinuous at 0 using epsilon delta.

Homework Equations


definiton of discontinuity in this case:
there exists an e>0 such that for all d>0 if |x-0|<d, |x^2-4|>e

Your definition of discontinuity is wrong. Continuity in 0 says that

"For all [itex]\varepsilon >0[/itex], there is a [itex]\delta>0[/itex], such that for all x holds that [itex]|x-0|<\delta~\Rightarrow~|x^2-4|<\varepsilon[/itex]"

So, the converse of this statement is

"There is a [itex]\varepsilon >0[/itex], such that for all [itex]\delta >0[/itex], there is an x such that [itex]|x-0|<\delta[/itex] but [itex]|x^2-4|\geq \varepsilon[/itex]"

So you don't need things to hold for all x such that [itex]|x-0|<\delta[/itex], but only for one specified x. Does that clear things up?

Hello micromass, I appreciate the response!
So you don't need things to hold for all x such that [itex]|x-0|<\delta[/itex], but only for one specified x.

I'm getting confused here how to formalize this. So for all [itex]\delta[/itex], we can find such an x as you described. It makes sense in the terms of [itex]delta = 1[/itex], look at x= 1/2, with [itex] \epsilon = 1[/itex].
I see that this case works, but how do do this for every delta? I can say now that I found an x for any [itex]\delta\geq 1[/itex] but now what about [itex]delta\leq 1[/itex] without going through the same argument?

I guess we could let x= 1/n and say there exists an n by the archimedean property that this is true and therefore we can do it that way, but it seems to me I used to do this without using this step... but maybe I didn't?

Hello micromass, I appreciate the response!

I'm getting confused here how to formalize this. So for all [itex]\delta[/itex], we can find such an x as you described. It makes sense in the terms of [itex]delta = 1[/itex], look at x= 1/2, with [itex] \epsilon = 1[/itex].
I see that this case works, but how do do this for every delta? I can say now that I found an x for any [itex]\delta\geq 1[/itex] but now what about [itex]delta\leq 1[/itex] without going through the same argument?

I guess we could let x= 1/n and say there exists an n by the archimedean property that this is true and therefore we can do it that way, but it seems to me I used to do this without using this step... but maybe I didn't?


So you take [itex]\varepsilon=1[/itex]. For all [itex]\delta>0[/itex], you must find an x such that

[tex]|x^2-4|\geq 1,~\text{but}~|x|<\delta[/tex]

Indeed, if [itex]\delta >1[/itex], you can take x=1.
And if [itex]\delta\leq 1[/itex], what if you take [itex]x=\delta/2[/itex]?

That's a better idea. Then [itex]|\frac{\delta}{2}^{2}-4|\geq 1[/itex] since [itex]\delta/2\leq1/2[/itex]

Would there be a way to do this without the caveat when [itex]\delta>1[/itex]. it seems very inelegant.

That's a better idea. Then [itex]|\frac{\delta}{2}^{2}-4|\geq 1[/itex] since [itex]\delta/2\leq1/2[/itex]

Would there be a way to do this without the caveat when [itex]\delta>1[/itex]. it seems very inelegant.


Epsilon-delta stuff always tend to be inelegant :smile: But no, I don't think there is an easier/more elegant way of doing this.
I think the way I'm thinking of it defining x=min(d/2,1). That would make me happy.

Thank you so much for your help.

I think the way I'm thinking of it defining x=min(d/2,1). That would make me happy.

Thank you so much for your help.


Oh, yes, if you find that more elegant, then you can always do that of course :smile:

Suggested for: Help on epsilon delta proof of discontinuity

  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Last Post
  • Forums
  • Homework Help
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help

christianprolemare.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/help-on-epsilon-delta-proof-of-discontinuity.513893/

0 Response to "Proving a Function is Continuous Using Epsilon Delta"

Enregistrer un commentaire

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel