Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - another attempt to understand min/max value of lambda

  1. #1
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,401

    another attempt to understand min/max value of lambda

    i read and translated this "article" from a book that shows a new concept to me.
    infinity small and infinitely large function.

    can you explain to me using those terms

    http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1610/97335712sc3.gif

    why in certain case we use maximum as the value for lambda and why
    in another we use minimum as the value for lambda
    like in here:
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2008
    From
    Paris, France
    Posts
    1,174
    Quote Originally Posted by transgalactic View Post
    i read and translated this "article" from a book that shows a new concept to me.
    infinity small and infinitely large function.

    can you explain to me using those terms

    http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1610/97335712sc3.gif

    why in certain case we use maximum as the value for lambda and why
    in another we use minimum as the value for lambda
    like in here:
    First, this is lambda: \lambda. And this is delta: \delta .

    As for your question: in this kind of proof, we need \delta to be small, and sometimes we need \delta to be smaller than, for instance, [tex]\delta_1[/Math] and \delta_2. Then this is equivalent to 0\leq \delta\leq\min(\delta_1,\delta_2).
    This is just taking \delta small enough so that \delta\leq\delta_1 and \delta\leq\delta_2. If you know that something is true if [tex]|x-5|\leq \delta_1[/Math] and |x-5|\leq\delta_2, then this is true if |x-5|\leq \delta=\min(\delta_1,\delta_2).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,401
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2008
    From
    Paris, France
    Posts
    1,174
    Quote Originally Posted by transgalactic View Post
    Because here, for all x>a, we have |f(x)|< M or |f(x)|<|A|+\varepsilon (depending whether x<c or x>c). And this is equivalent to saying that, for all x>a, |f(x)|< \max(M,|A|+\varepsilon).

    In the previous case, we wanted \delta\leq 1 and \delta\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{11}, which is equivalent to \delta\leq \min(1,\frac{\varepsilon}{11}).

    The difference comes from the or or and. It is very natural as well since \delta has to be small (we want something to be true for all x such that |x-5|<\delta), while B has to be large (we want |f(x)|<B).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,401
    why they use the Weierstrass law only on the 0<x<c case

    why we cant say
    for x>c
    there is M>|f(x)|

    (like in the couchy theorim for bounded sequence)
    ??
    Last edited by transgalactic; January 18th 2009 at 01:39 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2008
    From
    Paris, France
    Posts
    1,174
    Quote Originally Posted by transgalactic View Post
    why they use the Weierstrass law only on the 0<x<c case

    why we cant say
    for x>c
    there is M>|f(x)|

    (like in the couchy theorim for bounded sequence)
    ??
    Because the Weierstrass law (as far as I guess what it is) only tells that continuous functions are bounded on segments, i.e. closed bounded intervals [a,b]. The function x\mapsto x is continuous and obviously not bounded on [0,+\infty).

    In your situation, the function admits a limit A at +\infty. In a way, this amounts to writing " f(+\infty)=A" and saying that " f is continuous on [0,+\infty]" in order to apply Weierstrass rule. This is not fully rigorous as such, but with more mathematical knowledge you will be able to have this make sense. For now, there's no shortcut: the limit shows that f is bounded (by A+1 for instance) on some interval [c,\infty), and it is also bounded on [a,c] by Weierstrass, so that it is bounded on all \mathbb{R} (by the maximum of the two previous upper bounds).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Twin Prime Attempt?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 18th 2010, 06:43 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 27th 2010, 12:57 PM
  3. Centralizer Proof Attempt
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 29th 2009, 12:20 PM
  4. verifying identities attempt 3...
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 24th 2009, 01:10 AM
  5. one more attempt
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 13th 2009, 03:26 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum