Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree2Thanks
  • 1 Post By Plato
  • 1 Post By Deveno

Math Help - Missing Step in Apostol Proof of Basic Limit Theorems?

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2013
    From
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    12

    Missing Step in Apostol Proof of Basic Limit Theorems?

    Hi Folks: in Apostols's Calculus, section 3.5, Proofs of Basic Limit Theorems, page 136, Proofs of (i) and (ii), he makes an assumption which I'm hoping someone can explain to me how he justifies.

    He's proving the first limit theorem, that the limit of a sum is the sum of the limits. He says "Since the two statements lim f(x) = A and lim[f(x)-A]=0 are equivalent..."

    I can readily see that lim f(x) - A = 0 but don't you need the second limit theorem, that the limit of a difference is the difference of the limits, to therefore conclude that lim[f(x)-A]=0?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,708
    Thanks
    1638
    Awards
    1

    Re: Missing Step in Apostol Proof of Basic Limit Theorems?

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelLitzky View Post
    in Apostols's Calculus, section 3.5, Proofs of Basic Limit Theorems, page 136, Proofs of (i) and (ii), he makes an assumption which I'm hoping someone can explain to me how he justifies.
    He's proving the first limit theorem, that the limit of a sum is the sum of the limits. He says "Since the two statements lim f(x) = A and lim[f(x)-A]=0 are equivalent..."
    I can readily see that lim f(x) - A = 0 but don't you need the second limit theorem, that the limit of a difference is the difference of the limits, to therefore conclude that lim[f(x)-A]=0?
    I think that only someone with with a copy of that particular textbook can really answer your question. I no longer have a copy of Tom Apostol's book and don't really remember how he treats limits. But in general, that follows at once from a standard \epsilon(\delta) definition.

    Informally: if f(x) \approx A 'near' then f(x)-A \approx 0. Because by B \approx A means that B-A can be made small as needed.

    But hopefully someone else has a copy of that text.
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2013
    From
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    12

    Re: Missing Step in Apostol Proof of Basic Limit Theorems?

    Thanks, Plato. I think I can rephrase the question so it doesn't directly reference the Apostol text.

    So yes, by the \epsilon/ \delta definition of a limit we know that \lim_{x\to p}f(x)=A means |f(x)-A|< \epsilon whenever 0<|x-p|< \delta. We now set out to prove the Sum Law ( \lim_{x\to p}[f(x)+g(x)]=\lim_{x\to p}f(x)+\lim_{x\to p}g(x)). We have not yet proven the Difference Law ( \lim_{x\to p}[f(x)-g(x)]=\lim_{x\to p}f(x)-\lim_{x\to p}g(x)).

    Our first step is to assume that \lim_{x\to p}f(x)=A and \lim_{x\to p}[f(x)-A]=0 are the same, which is what Apostol does. Now of course if we already have the Difference Law, then:
    \\ \lim_{x\to p}[f(x)-A]=\\ \lim_{x\to p}f(x)-\lim_{x\to p}A=\\A-A=0

    My question is, without having proven the Difference Law, how can we justify the assumption that \lim_{x\to p}[f(x)-A]=0? (I'm trying to get better at proofs, which is why I'm being so nit-picky about when you can assume what.) Thanks!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,397
    Thanks
    760

    Re: Missing Step in Apostol Proof of Basic Limit Theorems?

    I think what is being glossed over here, is that A is just a constant, it has no dependence on x. There is a world of difference between asserting:

    1) \lim_{x \to p} [f(x) - g(x)] = \lim_{x \to p}f(x) - \lim_{x \to p}g(x)

    and

    2) \lim_{x \to p} [f(x) - C] = \lim_{x \to p}f(x) - C

    Let's prove #2:

    for convenience, we will take \lim_{x \to p} f(x) = A, in other words, we are assuming f HAS a limit A at the point p. Of course what this means is that for every \epsilon > 0 there does indeed exist some \delta > 0 so that whenever:

    0 < |x - p| < \delta, we have: |f(x) - A| < \epsilon.

    What we want to show is that for the same \epsilon (which is, after all, arbitrary) we can find a \delta_1 so that:

    0 < |x - p| < \delta_1 \implies |(f(x) - C) - (A - C)| < \epsilon.

    Stated THIS way, it is obvious (without invoking "the difference law") because in the last inequality the C's cancel, meaning we can use the same \delta!

    Taking now C to actually be the limit A, we obtain what Apostol assumes (A - A is obviously 0).
    Thanks from MichaelLitzky
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Feb 2013
    From
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    12

    Re: Missing Step in Apostol Proof of Basic Limit Theorems?

    Thank you, Deveno. That makes it crystal clear.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Am I missing a step? quoitent rule
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 3rd 2011, 07:38 AM
  2. Proof of Green's theorem in Apostol's book
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th 2010, 10:06 PM
  3. Fill in missing step please!
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 13th 2010, 11:06 AM
  4. Factor and Simplify: I'm missing a step!
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 15th 2008, 07:49 PM
  5. Missing step converting ratio to whole number
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 7th 2008, 01:20 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum