x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Continous functions questions watch

1. I'm not sure if my working is right for this one..

I have put:

For all epsilon > 0, there exists delta > 0, such that | f(x) - f(a) | < epsilon, | x - a | < delta

We can use a delta small enough to take epsilon = f(a)/2

| f(x) - f(a) | =< f(a)/2 = epsilon

Resulting in 3f(a)/2 > f(x) > f(a)/2

But I'm not sure if that's okay?

Next question:

Let x >= z, and let f(z) = inf{x : x E R}

Let f(z) = c

Take a small delta such that | x - z | < delta

Then I went to choose c such that |f(x) - c| < |f(x) - 1| < epsilon

Again, I feel like I'm not doing well enough here.
2. (Original post by TheBBQ)

I'm not sure if my working is right for this one..

I have put:

For all epsilon > 0, there exists delta > 0, such that | f(x) - f(a) | < epsilon, | x - a | < delta

We can use a delta small enough to take epsilon = f(a)/2

| f(x) - f(a) | =< f(a)/2 = epsilon

Resulting in 3f(a)/2 > f(x) > f(a)/2

But I'm not sure if that's okay?
Basically OK, but needs sharpening up a bit.
Your definition of continuity is a bit sloppy.
We choose epsilon, f(a)/2, then there exists a delta such that if | x-a | < delta, then |f(x) - f(a) | < f(a)/2.
And continue.
Also, take care to use strict inequalities "<", or weak inequalities "<=", correctly. Sometimes it's not a significant part of a proof, but on other occasions the whole proof stands or falls on it.

Next question:

Let x >= z, and let f(z) = inf{x : x E R}

Let f(z) = c

Take a small delta such that | x - z | < delta

Then I went to choose c such that |f(x) - c| < |f(x) - 1| < epsilon

Again, I feel like I'm not doing well enough here.
What's z? and your set "inf{x : x E R}" doesn't make much sense.
3. (Original post by ghostwalker)
Basically OK, but needs sharpening up a bit.
Your definition of continuity is a bit sloppy.
We choose epsilon, f(a)/2, then there exists a delta such that if | x-a | < delta, then |f(x) - f(a) | < f(a)/2.
And continue.
Also, take care to use strict inequalities "<", or weak inequalities "<=", correctly. Sometimes it's not a significant part of a proof, but on other occasions the whole proof stands or falls on it.

What's z? and your set "inf{x : x E R}" doesn't make much sense.
Thanks for the help
Yeah I'm thinking that I should use weak inequalities for most of the first question, and then finally saying 3f(a)/2 >= f(x) >= f(a)/2, and then hence f(x) >= f(a)/2?

For the second part, I meant to say that I'm using the extreme value theorem, taking z in [0, infinity) such that all x >= z, hence f(z) = {f(x): x E R), I acidentally typed it up a bit wrongly
4. (Original post by TheBBQ)
Thanks for the help
Yeah I'm thinking that I should use weak inequalities for most of the first question, and then finally saying 3f(a)/2 >= f(x) >= f(a)/2, and then hence f(x) >= f(a)/2?
Well the question is asking for you to show f(x) > f(a)/2

For the second part, I meant to say that I'm using the extreme value theorem, taking z in [0, infinity) such that all x >= z, hence f(z) = {f(x): x E R), I acidentally typed it up a bit wrongly
Can you post your answer to the second question all together, as I'm not clear what's going on trying to combine that with what you said in your first post.

Also make sure you meet the criteria for the extreme value theorem in your usage of it.
5. (Original post by ghostwalker)
Well the question is asking for you to show f(x) > f(a)/2

Can you post your answer to the second question all together, as I'm not clear what's going on trying to combine that with what you said in your first post.

Also make sure you meet the criteria for the extreme value theorem in your usage of it.
But is that way of doing the first question acceptable?

Here is my answer for the second part:

Take z in [0, infinity)

Let x >= z, and let f(z) = inf{f(x) : x E R} I'm not sure if this should be x in R or x in [0, infinity)..

Let f(z) = c, which we can do as f(z) is in the infimum of function and it is required to find f(x) >= c for all x in [0,infinity)

Take a small delta such that | x - z | < delta

Then I went to choose c such that |f(x) - c| =< |f(x) - 1| =< epsilon

That is my correction.
6. (Original post by TheBBQ)
But is that way of doing the first question acceptable?
In essence yes, with the caveats I previously mentioned. You are asked to show f(x) > f(a)/2, not >= f(a)/2, the latter being a weaker condition.

Here is my answer for the second part:

Take z in [0, infinity)
OK, I choose z=5

Let x >= z, and let f(z) = inf{f(x) : x E R} I'm not sure if this should be x in R or x in [0, infinity)..
But f(x) is defined already, in particular f(z) = f(5), so I can't define it again with that set.

Last post for today.
7. (Original post by ghostwalker)
In essence yes, with the caveats I previously mentioned. You are asked to show f(x) > f(a)/2, not >= f(a)/2, the latter being a weaker condition.

OK, I choose z=5

But f(x) is defined already, in particular f(z) = f(5), so I can't define it again with that set.

Last post for today.
Thanks for the help for the first bit!

Hmm I see that what I have done wouldn't work, but I am rather unsure of the correct way to go.

I'll try again, hopefully someone else can help

As f is continous, we can find c > 0 such that f(x) >= c > 0

For f(x) >= c to hold true for every x E [0,infinity), let x >= z, and let f(z) = inf{f(x) : x E [0,infinity) }

Take a small delta such that | x - z | < delta

Then I went to choose c such that |f(x) - c| =< |f(x) - 1| =< epsilon
8. (Original post by TheBBQ)
..
To my mind it's going to be very difficult to solve the 2nd question using just one idea (as it seems you're currently trying to do).

There are 2 separate things going on here - you've told f(x) is always > 0, and you're also told that f(x)->1 as x->infinity.

Now on any finite interval I, you can use the extreme value theorem to say f(x) attains it's bounds on I, and so since f(x) > 0, the bound on I is also > 0.

But your problem is that is NOT a finite interval.

So you're going to need to use what you're told about the behaviour of f(x) as x->infinity.

I would start by writiing down what it means to say that as . Then use that to show that you can find an infinite interval on which we know f(x) > 1/2. Then extend to the full range by adding on a finite interval.
9. (Original post by DFranklin)
To my mind it's going to be very difficult to solve the 2nd question using just one idea (as it seems you're currently trying to do).

There are 2 separate things going on here - you've told f(x) is always > 0, and you're also told that f(x)->1 as x->infinity.

Now on any finite interval I, you can use the extreme value theorem to say f(x) attains it's bounds on I, and so since f(x) > 0, the bound on I is also > 0.

But your problem is that is NOT a finite interval.

So you're going to need to use what you're told about the behaviour of f(x) as x->infinity.

I would start by writiing down what it means to say that as . Then use that to show that you can find an infinite interval on which we know f(x) > 1/2. Then extend to the full range by adding on a finite interval.
I think f(x) -> 1 as x -> infinity means f(x) is continous on all points between 0 and infinity, thus we can find c > 0

Taking epsilon = 1/2, and using an M in R, and letting x >= M, then I can have it such that | f(x) - 1 | =< 1/2 = epsilon, and from that we have f(x) >= 1/2

Now I can take the other part of the interval, [0.M], and find c in here, which would mean that f(x) >= 1/2 >= c > 0

I can find a z in the interval [0,M] such that f(z) = inf { f(m): m E [0,M] } > 0, and call this c

Then it would satisfy that f(x) >= 1/2 >= c as sup { f(m): m E [0,M] } would be =< 1/2?
10. (Original post by TheBBQ)
I think f(x) -> 1 as x -> infinity means f(x) is continous on all points between 0 and infinity, thus we can find c > 0
No, this isn't what it means. There is no implication of continuity. A correct definition:

as if such that .

Taking epsilon = 1/2, and using an M in R, and letting x >= M, then I can have it such that | f(x) - 1 | =< 1/2 = epsilon, and from that we have f(x) >= 1/2
This is basically correct, but it's very unclearly worded.

Now I can take the other part of the interval, [0.M], and find c in here, which would mean that f(x) >= 1/2 >= c > 0
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Some of this isn't true, and what is true needs justification, which you haven't provided. I think the justification is supposed to be what's following, but you either need to put the justification first or rewrite the above to be more like "We still need to deal with the interval [0,M]. We shall show that we can find c > 0 such that ..."

I can find a z in the interval [0,M] such that f(z) = inf { f(m): m E [0,M] } > 0, and call this c
If you're going to use a theorem, you should actually name it, and make it clear that any conditions are satisfied. e.g. "Since f is cts, and [0, M] is a closed interval, f attains its bounds on this interval. In particular, we can find z in [0, M] such that..."

Then it would satisfy that f(x) >= 1/2 >= c as sup { f(m): m E [0,M] } would be =< 1/2?
There is no reason to assume c <= 1/2. E.g. f(x) = 1 everywhere (f is constant). You also seem to have switched from inf to sup but I assume that's a typo.
11. (Original post by DFranklin)
No, this isn't what it means. There is no implication of continuity. A correct definition:

as if such that .

This is basically correct, but it's very unclearly worded.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Some of this isn't true, and what is true needs justification, which you haven't provided. I think the justification is supposed to be what's following, but you either need to put the justification first or rewrite the above to be more like "We still need to deal with the interval [0,M]. We shall show that we can find c > 0 such that ..."

If you're going to use a theorem, you should actually name it, and make it clear that any conditions are satisfied. e.g. "Since f is cts, and [0, M] is a closed interval, f attains its bounds on this interval. In particular, we can find z in [0, M] such that..."

There is no reason to assume c <= 1/2. E.g. f(x) = 1 everywhere (f is constant). You also seem to have switched from inf to sup but I assume that's a typo.
Yes that last bit is the typo.

As f is continous in all of [0,infinity), by the extreme value theorem we can find a z in the finite interval [0,M] such that f(z) = sup { f(m): m E [0,M] } > 0, and denote this as c, and we have that c > 0.

As we have f(x) >= 1/2 as x -> infinity in the interval [M,infinity) , it stands that 1/2 >= f(z) = c and thus f(x) >= 1/2 >= c? This is all i can think of

I am not sure how I am meant to do this last bit, as I have found that f(x) >= 1/2, but I don't think I can actually justify using c =< 1/2 besides that I've made it the sup of the finite interval..
12. (Original post by TheBBQ)
Yes that last bit is the typo.

As f is continous in all of [0,infinity), by the extreme value theorem we can find a z in the finite interval [0,M] such that f(z) = sup { f(m): m E [0,M] } > 0, and denote this as c, and we have that c > 0.
What is M? Where have you defined it?

Previously I posted:

(Original post by DFranklin)
I would start by writiing down what it means to say that f(x)\to 1 as x \to \infty. Then use that to show that you can find an infinite interval [M, \infty) on which we know f(x) > 1/2. Then extend to the full range [0,\infty) by adding on a finite interval.
You need to work in the order I suggest, so M is defined before you start talking about the interval [0, M].

[I must say, presenting your argument in the right order seems to be a bit of a problem for you - you keep using variables in paragraph 1 that you don't define until paragraph 3 etc. You need to sort this out].

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: January 16, 2015
Today on TSR

### Boyfriend slept with someone else

...we were on a break

Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams