Quiz:Limit: Difference between revisions

From Calculus
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{perspectives}}
{{perspectives}}
==Motivation==
===Two key ideas===
<quiz display=simple>
{Suppose <math>f</math> is a function defined on all of <math>\R</math>. We find that <math>\displaystyle \lim_{x \to 2} f(x) = 5</math>. Suppose <math>g</math> is another function defined on <math>\R</math> that differs from <math>f</math> at one point <math>p</math>, i.e., <math>f(x) = g(x)</math> for all <math>x \ne p</math>, but <math>f(p) \ne g(p)</math>. Which of the following is true?
|type="()"}
+ Whatever the value of <math>p</math>, <math>\lim_{x \to 2} g(x) = 5</math>
|| In case <math>p = 2</math>, the limit is unaffected because the limit does not depend on the function behavior at the point. For any fixed value of <math>p</math> other than 2, that number is "too far away" from 2 because the limit depends only on the behavior arbitrarily close to 2.
- If <math>p \ne 2</math>, then <math>\lim_{x \to 2} g(x) = 5</math>, but if <math>p = 2</math>, we cannot say anything about the limit.
|| If <math>p = 2</math>, the limit should remain unchanged, because the value at the point does not affect the limit.
- If <math>p \ne 2</math>, then <math>\lim_{x \to 2} g(x) = 5</math>, but if <math>p = 2</math>, then <math>\lim_{x \to 2} g(x) \ne 5</math>
|| If <math>p = 2</math>, the limit should remain unchanged, because the value at the point does not affect the limit.
- <math>\lim_{x \to 2} g(x) = 5</math> unless <math>p</math> is very close to (but still not equal to) 2 . In case <math>p</math> is very close to (but still not equal to) 2, we cannot say anything about the limit.
|| For a ''fixed '' number <math>p</math>, it does not make sense to say that the number is "very close to" 2. From a mathematical perspective, any single number is too far away.
- <math>\lim_{x \to 2} g(x) = 5</math> unless <math>p</math> is very close to (but still not equal to) 2 . In case <math>p</math> is very close to (but still not equal to) 2, the limit is definitely not equal to 5.
|| For a ''fixed '' number <math>p</math>, it does not make sense to say that the number is "very close to" 2. From a mathematical perspective, any single number is too far away.
{Which of the following is the best verbal explanation of why the limit <math>\lim_{x \to 0} \sin(1/x)</math> does not exist? As a sanity check for your answer option, keep in mind that <math>\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin (1/x) = 0</math>, so your answer option should ''not'' predict that <math>\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin(1/x)</math> does not exist.
|type="()"}
- When <math>x = 0</math>, <math>1/x</math> is undefined, so <math>\sin(1/x)</math> does not make sense at the point 0.
|| This is not good enough, because we are asking about the ''limit'', not the value. It is perfectly possible for an expression to not make sense at a point but for the function defined by it to still have a limit at the point. For instance, <math>\lim_{x \to 0} x \sin (1/x) = 0</math>.
- The function <math>\sin(1/x)</math> oscillates between positive and negative values for <math>x</math> arbitrarily close to zero.
|| This is sort of the reason, but not quite. Oscillation alone is not the issue. For instance, <math>x \sin (1/x)</math> also oscillates, but the oscillations of this function have smaller and smaller amplitudes as <math>x \to 0</math>. The real issue is that <math>\sin(1/x)</math> has "undamped" oscillations arbitrarily close to 0.
+ <math>\sin(1/x)</math> cannot be ''trapped'' in any interval of width less than two for <math>x</math> in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of zero.
|| This is the correct idea, and it can be formalized with the <math>\varepsilon-\delta</math> definition.
</quiz>


==Definition for finite limit for finite function of one variable==
==Definition for finite limit for finite function of one variable==
Line 6: Line 34:


<quiz display=simple>
<quiz display=simple>
{Suppose <math>c,L \in \R</math> and <math>f</math> is a function defined on a subset of <math>\R</math>. Which of these is the correct interpretation of <math>\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L</math> in terms of the definition of limit?
{Suppose <math>c,L \in \R</math> and <math>f</math> is a function defined on a subset of <math>\R</math>. Which of these is the correct interpretation of <math>\displaystyle \lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L</math> in terms of the definition of limit?
|type="()"}
|type="()"}
- For every <math>\alpha > 0</math>, there exists <math>\beta > 0</math> such that if <math>0 < |x - c| < \alpha</math>, then <math>|f(x) - L| < \beta</math>.
- For every <math>\alpha > 0</math>, there exists <math>\beta > 0</math> such that if <math>0 < |x - c| < \alpha</math>, then <math>|f(x) - L| < \beta</math>.
Line 25: Line 53:


</quiz>
</quiz>
===Left hand limit and right hand limit===
===Left hand limit and right hand limit===



Revision as of 19:00, 29 September 2012

ORIGINAL FULL PAGE: Limit
STUDY THE TOPIC AT MULTIPLE LEVELS:
ALSO CHECK OUT: Quiz (multiple choice questions to test your understanding) |Page with videos on the topic, both embedded and linked to

Motivation

Two key ideas

1 Suppose is a function defined on all of . We find that . Suppose is another function defined on that differs from at one point , i.e., for all , but . Which of the following is true?

Whatever the value of ,
If , then , but if , we cannot say anything about the limit.
If , then , but if , then
unless is very close to (but still not equal to) 2 . In case is very close to (but still not equal to) 2, we cannot say anything about the limit.
unless is very close to (but still not equal to) 2 . In case is very close to (but still not equal to) 2, the limit is definitely not equal to 5.

2 Which of the following is the best verbal explanation of why the limit does not exist? As a sanity check for your answer option, keep in mind that , so your answer option should not predict that does not exist.

When , is undefined, so does not make sense at the point 0.
The function oscillates between positive and negative values for arbitrarily close to zero.
cannot be trapped in any interval of width less than two for in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of zero.


Definition for finite limit for finite function of one variable

Two-sided limit

1 Suppose and is a function defined on a subset of . Which of these is the correct interpretation of in terms of the definition of limit?

For every , there exists such that if , then .
There exists such that for every , and , we have .
For every , there exists such that if , then .
There exists such that for every and , we have .
None of the above

2 Suppose is a function defined on some subset of . Suppose and are real numbers. If , what can we say about ?

exists and is equal to .
does not exist.
may or may not exist, but if it exists, it must equal .
must exist, but it need not be equal to .
may or may not exist, and even if it does exist, it may or may not be equal to .


Left hand limit and right hand limit

1 Which of these is the correct interpretation of the left hand limit in terms of the definition of limit?

For every , there exists such that for all satisfying , we have .
For every , there exists such that for all satisfying , we have .
For every , there exists such that for all satisfying , we have .
For every , there exists such that for all satisfying , we have .
For every , there exists such that for all satisfying , we have .

2 Suppose the domain of a function is a closed bounded interval, i.e., an interval of the form for real numbers . Which of the following definitely do not make sense?

The left hand limit at the left endpoint and the right hand limit at the right endpoint.
The left hand limit at the right endpoint and the right hand limit at the left endpoint.
The left hand limit and the right hand limit at any interior point.
The two-sided limit at any interior point.
The left hand limit at any point other than the left endpoint and the right hand limit at any point other than the right endpoint.


Definition of finite limit for function of one variable in terms of a game

In the usual definition of limit for a given limit , if a given value works for a given value , then which of the following is true?

Every smaller positive value of works for the same . Also, the given value of works for every smaller positive value of .
Every smaller positive value of works for the same . Also, the given value of works for every larger value of .
Every larger value of works for the same . Also, the given value of $\delta$ works for every smaller positive value of .
Every larger value of works for the same . Also, the given value of works for every larger value of .
None of the above statements need always be true.


Non-existence of limit

Suppose is a function defined on a subset of . is a real number such that is in the domain of for some . Identify the correct interpretation of the statement " does not exist" among the choices below.

For every and for every , there exists such that for all satisfying , we have .
For every , there exists such that for every , there exists satisfying and such that .
For every , there exists such that for every , and every satisfying , we have .
There exists and such that for every , there exists satisfying and such that .
For every , there exist and such that for every satisfying , we have .