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

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]