Quiz:Limit: Difference between revisions
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
Definition for finite limit for finite function of one variable
Two-sided limit
Left hand limit and right hand limit
Definition of finite limit for function of one variable in terms of a game
Non-existence of limit