For each state limit, find the largest possible -neighborhood that is a proper response to the given challenge.
a. where
b. where
c. where ( returns the greatest integer )
d. where .
Remember, is for the input, and is for the output of the function.
Proof
a. In general for any we would want to find some where given then we can find:
Thus we'd have to choose , thus in this case choose .
b. In general where now :
Thus we'd want to choose here, specifically .
c and d. We expect that should work here for both cases (since then we can easily evaluate the part, as shown below). Notice that:
Thus:
always will work for any .
☐
4.2.5
Question
Use the Functional Limit definition to supply a proper proof for the following limit statements:
a.
b.
c.
d.
For all of these we will want to have some scratch work.
a. We want for any to find where supposing then:
Thus we want .
b. For we want:
Thus we want here.
c. For we want:
While it seems that we are stuck, try to notice that:
Thus so we can keep going:
Now the problem is that we can't really solve for here, so we are going to have to find some terms larger that simplifies nicely. Notice that we can try to complete the square here:
should work.
d. For we want:
Similar to (c), notice that:
Thus . Then:
We seem to be stuck. What would be nice is to multiply the out prior while we are increasing terms, but we can't. What could help is to assume that is ultimately greater than some positive value, like so that that implies that so then we could continue our work. If this is the case:
Gives the restriction that .
But then to evaluate we'd want:
Thus we'd need as well. Since and then use their minimum.
Proof
a. Let . Then choose . Then for any (namely ), then:
b. Let . Then choose . Then for any () then:
c. Let . Then choose . Then for any () notice first that:
Thus and . Thus:
d. Let . Then choose . Then for any () first notice that . Thus:
☐
4.2.6
Question
Decide if the following claims are true or false, and give short justifications for each conclusion.
a. If a particular has been constructed as a suitable response to a particular challenge, then any smaller positive will also suffice.
b. If and happens to be in the domain of , then .
c. If then
d. If then for any function (with domain equal to the domain of ).
Proof
a. True. If such a has been constructed such that we get a limit, then using a works. Consider has been shown with to work for . We want to show that it works for . Notice that since we suppose that then automatically so that implies that already!
b. False. Consider any removable discontinuity function. For example consider:
But you work backwards to justify the limits existing for the intermediate steps. For example, we know that:
has to exist since if it didn't, then since exists and so does , then that's a contradiction. As a result exists and thus the first limit we had as well. Using the ALT is justified here!
d. False. Consider the function and both defined on . Clearly but then:
The main issue here is that we require the limits to exist if we want to split them up like this. See how that was justified at the end of (c) in this question.
☐
4.2.7
Question
Let and assume that is a bounded function on ; in the sense that where for all .
Show that if then as well.
Scratch:
Trying to use the Algebraic Limit Theorem for Functional Limits doesn't work here since we don't know the value of (the limit itself might now exist, for example consider the function over the domain . The limit at doesn't exist, even though the function is indeed bounded). Thus we have to use the definition.
If we let and want to choose some then supposing then we want:
From then we can use our to get that where for our supposed then:
Thus:
Isn't ideal. We want to end up with . It'd be better if the for the limit is instead for this. If we did then then everything follows:
Proof
Let . Notice that since then because then we know that we can choose some where if we suppose then we get:
Thus then:
☐
4.2.8
Question
Compute each limit or state that it does not exist. Use the tools developed in this section to justify each conclusion.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Proof
a. This is similar to a step function over 2, suggesting the limit doesn't exist. If we consider the sequences (the right side limit) where and then:
While if we consider the sequence (the left side limit) where and then:
b. We'll show that it's -1. Let then choose (that's the input neighborhood radius with all constant values) such that if then:
Thus:
c. This is similar to (a), where coming from the left would give while coming in from the right would give which are different value. Let's show this. Consider the sequence . Notice as desired and:
Thus . However if then notice but:
Thus . These two sequences converges to different values when applied to via , so then by the Existence of Functional Limits then the functional limit doesn't exist here.
d. We know that by the following argument. Let . Choose such that for any then first notice:
Thus:
The middle step showing is pretty easy:
If then the result is trivial.
If then
If then
Now to the original question, notice that is bounded by here. That means that by 42 Functional Limits Practice#4.2.7 then exists and is just .