Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2019 February 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathematics desk
< February 25 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 27 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


February 26

[edit]

Limit of quotient

[edit]

How to prove by ?

I like proofs which avoid using arbitrary deductions such as etc. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "arbitrary deductions"? Any valid proof is going to start off with something like "Let ε > 0 ..." – the definition of a limit is going to require that you find a good enough δ for a given, arbitrary ε. No deductions (or assumptions, if that's what you meant) about the value of ε can be made, except that it's positive. Also, rather than someone here just doing the proof for you, it's generally good if you can say a little about what you've tried, what doesn't work, where you're stuck, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do I get rid of the denominator? I tried a few inequalities with no success. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have x in the interval where δ is yet to be determined. So 5x − 4 must be somewhere in the interval We need to bound it away from 0, so we just need to pick a value for δ which will keep the the lower end of that interval positive – anything (strictly) less than 1/5 will work. For example, if you require your δ to always be less than 1/6, then the denominator will always be at least 1/6 (and 1 over the denominator less than 6); if you require δ to be less than 1/10, then the denominator will always be at least 1/2, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, for any dense set A (such as the rational numbers), we can assume without loss of generality that .--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather a contrived example. You can note that
So, you only need to prove that
,
which is much simpler. Ruslik_Zero 10:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The simplification relies on the the limit law about the linearity of taking the limit, which I believe is out of the scope of the OP's question, even if it makes things harder for them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think your simplification assumes the numerator is but it's , meaning it takes more than just that limit law to simplify that way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: 1. Please ping the user to whom you answer. 2. You've put the closing </math> tags twice and no opening tag. --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]