You are Here: Home >< Maths

# How's this epsilon-delta proof? watch

1. These proofs are killing me! But I'm finally starting to get a grasp of them. So I just wanted to check if this proof is sane and correct since it is different from the ones usually given: all of the proofs I found use the minimum function, , one way or another; this one doesn't.
Anyways here is the limit:.
Proof:

Suppose . Let and let be any complex number, where . Then:

This part is straight forward, and it follows from .

This part uses the triangle inequality. The equality here will not hold for since it is strictly less than .

Substitution.

DONE!

So how was that?
2. In line 1, you assume that . This isn't necessarily true: what happens if ? You also assume that , which is never true.

You've got a few inequalities that you're claming are strict that aren't.

The whole thing badly needs some explanation and adjustment to make it clearer.
3. (Original post by gagafacea1)
These proofs are killing me! But I'm finally starting to get a grasp of them. So I just wanted to check if this proof is sane and correct since it is different from the ones usually given: all of the proofs I found use the minimum function, <a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/c9/c9b09d247b505b567e9a89e678bb82ba .png" width="79" height="21" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -5px;" alt="\min{(x,y)}" title="\min{(x,y)}" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%5Cmin%7B%28x %2Cy%29%7D','latexCode','toolbar =no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,r esizable=yes,status=no,width=460 ,height=320,left=200,top=100');" /></a>, one way or another; this one doesn't.
Anyways here is the limit:<a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/bd/bddac2347e38ad96a3677589470fc512 .png" width="99" height="31" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -15px;" alt="\displaystyle \lim_{z \rightarrow z_0}z^2=z_0^2" title="\displaystyle \lim_{z \rightarrow z_0}z^2=z_0^2" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%5Cdisplaysty le+%5Clim_%7Bz+%5Crightarrow+z_0 %7Dz%5E2%3Dz_0%5E2','latexCode', 'toolbar=no,location=no,scrollba rs=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,w idth=460,height=320,left=200,top =100');" /></a>.
Proof:

Suppose <a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/93/93e50e2f00ace9894edc61ad0fe45bb3 .png" width="43" height="15" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -1px;" alt="\epsilon &gt;0" title="\epsilon &gt;0" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%5Cepsilon+%3 E0','latexCode','toolbar=no,loca tion=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable =yes,status=no,width=460,height= 320,left=200,top=100');" /></a>. Let <a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/bb/bb4e87881d7233dac12d878343cd727e .png" width="175" height="25" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -6px;" alt="\delta=\sqrt{|z_0|^2-\epsilon}-|z_0|" title="\delta=\sqrt{|z_0|^2-\epsilon}-|z_0|" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%5Cdelta%3D%5 Csqrt%7B%7Cz_0%7C%5E2-%5Cepsilon%7D-%7Cz_0%7C','latexCode','toolbar= no,location=no,scrollbars=yes,re sizable=yes,status=no,width=460, height=320,left=200,top=100');" /></a> and let <a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/9d/9d5ed8764b4f74e3b56fbe649cf91c3a .png" width="10" height="10" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" alt="z" title="z" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=z','latexCode ','toolbar=no,location=no,scroll bars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=460,height=320,left=200,t op=100');" /></a> be any complex number, where <a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/ab/abd73f685648c305bf62adb1d0a38b42 .png" width="134" height="20" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -5px;" alt="0&lt;|z-z_0|&lt;\delta" title="0&lt;|z-z_0|&lt;\delta" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=0%3C%7Cz-z_0%7C%3C%5Cdelta','latexCode',' toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbar s=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,wi dth=460,height=320,left=200,top= 100');" /></a>. Then:

<a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/52/520b54988803a430641bc9d4931c01ab .png" width="466" height="21" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -5px;" alt="|z^2-z_0^2|=|z-z_0||z+z_0|&lt;\delta |z+z_0|=\delta |z-z_0+2z_0|" title="|z^2-z_0^2|=|z-z_0||z+z_0|&lt;\delta |z+z_0|=\delta |z-z_0+2z_0|" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%7Cz%5E2-z_0%5E2%7C%3D%7Cz-z_0%7C%7Cz%2Bz_0%7C%3C%5Cdelta+% 7Cz%2Bz_0%7C%3D%5Cdelta+%7Cz-z_0%2B2z_0%7C','latexCode','tool bar=no,location=no,scrollbars=ye s,resizable=yes,status=no,width= 460,height=320,left=200,top=100' );" /></a>

<a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/48/4813a42030fdf5acc6c6bbe624b05b15 .png" width="418" height="21" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -5px;" alt="\delta|z-z_0+2z_0|&lt;\delta(|z-z_0|+|2z_0|)&lt;\delta(\delta+2| z_0|)" title="\delta|z-z_0+2z_0|&lt;\delta(|z-z_0|+|2z_0|)&lt;\delta(\delta+2| z_0|)" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%5Cdelta%7Cz-z_0%2B2z_0%7C%3C%5Cdelta%28%7Cz-z_0%7C%2B%7C2z_0%7C%29%3C%5Cdelt a%28%5Cdelta%2B2%7Cz_0%7C%29','l atexCode','toolbar=no,location=n o,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,s tatus=no,width=460,height=320,le ft=200,top=100');" /></a>

<a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/32/32d6b5ff49249e0d6fd964929facc9db .png" width="198" height="21" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -5px;" alt=" \mid z^2-z_0^2 \mid&lt;\delta(\delta+2|z_0|)" title=" \mid z^2-z_0^2 \mid&lt;\delta(\delta+2|z_0|)" onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%0D%0A%5Cmid+ z%5E2-z_0%5E2+%5Cmid%3C%5Cdelta%28%5Cd elta%2B2%7Cz_0%7C%29','latexCode ','toolbar=no,location=no,scroll bars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=460,height=320,left=200,t op=100');" /></a>

<a rel="nofollow" href="javascript:void(0)"><img src="http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/pictures/50/50c3a26bb9859da917c4fb903b51a707 .png" width="448" height="25" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: -6px;" alt=" \mid z^2-z_0^2 \mid&lt;(\sqrt{|z_0|^2-\epsilon}-|z_0|)(\sqrt{|z_0|^2-\epsilon}+|z_0|)=\epsilon " title=" \mid z^2-z_0^2 \mid&lt;(\sqrt{|z_0|^2-\epsilon}-|z_0|)(\sqrt{|z_0|^2-\epsilon}+|z_0|)=\epsilon " onclick="newWindow=window.open(' http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/latexrender/latexcode.php?code=%0D%0A%5Cmid+ z%5E2-z_0%5E2+%5Cmid%3C%28%5Csqrt%7B%7 Cz_0%7C%5E2-%5Cepsilon%7D-%7Cz_0%7C%29%28%5Csqrt%7B%7Cz_0% 7C%5E2-%5Cepsilon%7D%2B%7Cz_0%7C%29%3D% 5Cepsilon%0D%0A','latexCode','to olbar=no,location=no,scrollbars= yes,resizable=yes,status=no,widt h=460,height=320,left=200,top=10 0');" /></a>

DONE!

So how was that?

I apologise in advance for not being able to help here but I couldn't resist
4. (Original post by BlueSam3)
In line 1, you assume that . This isn't necessarily true: what happens if ? You also assume that , which is never true.

You've got a few inequalities that you're claming are strict that aren't.

The whole thing badly needs some explanation and adjustment to make it clearer.
That was a typo, it should have been a plus not a minus epsilon. I always do this when using LaTeX!
Oh and you mean the second line, where I used the triangle inequality? You're right but that shouldn't affect it much, since is strictly bigger than . I edited the post now, thanks for pointing those out.
5. Bump!
6. (Original post by gagafacea1)
Bump!
I found it a bit hard to read, so only scanned it. You can simplify it anyway with something like this (I'll use rather than )

With we have

But if then:

So if

So having chosen choose and the argument above will work.
7. (Original post by gagafacea1)
Bump!
Looks fine to me, though that's not the ordering I'd expect to see in an exam. You've clearly worked out a possible function for delta initially.
8. (Original post by ghostwalker)
Looks fine to me, though that's not the ordering I'd expect to see in an exam. You've clearly worked out a possible function for delta initially.
That's how I'd do it: I'd just write "", leave it blank, then figure out what I needed as I went.
9. What level is this? Im hoping to do a maths degree but this looks crazy! hehe
10. (Original post by Sourestdeeds)
What level is this? Im hoping to do a maths degree but this looks crazy! hehe
1st year undergrad (at a decent university, at any rate).
11. (Original post by Sourestdeeds)
What level is this? Im hoping to do a maths degree but this looks crazy! hehe
First year (basic) analysis work.
12. (Original post by DFranklin)
1st year undergrad (at a decent university, at any rate).
Oh cool Have my hopes on Nottingham Uni. Seeing this makes me feel better about teaching myself FP2. Knowing that what I'm doing now isn't that hard in comparison is good!
13. (Original post by atsruser)
I found it a bit hard to read, so only scanned it. You can simplify it anyway with something like this (I'll use rather than )
But...but...but that's how they write it in the books? And I don't see how yours is simpler than mine to be honest. Not saying you're wrong or anything, but as I said, I didn't want to use that min function.

(Original post by ghostwalker)
Looks fine to me, though that's not the ordering I'd expect to see in an exam. You've clearly worked out a possible function for delta initially.
Of course I have done some scratch work, but from what I've read in multiple places, when you present the proof, you're supposed to present it in the order I did. Though maybe not in actual exams?
14. (Original post by gagafacea1)
Of course I have done some scratch work, but from what I've read in multiple places, when you present the proof, you're supposed to present it in the order I did. Though maybe not in actual exams?
"Supposed" is a bit strong. Suppose you want to show f is continuous at a. There's nothing wrong with starting off with the standard "take ", and then simply the assumption . You then start to put bounds on |f(x) - f(a)| given , piling extra conditions on to as necessary until you can finally say triumphantly: "if satisfies all these conditions then whenever , therefore f is continuous at a".
15. (Original post by DFranklin)
"Supposed" is a bit strong. Suppose you want to show f is continuous at a. There's nothing wrong with starting off with the standard "take ", and then simply the assumption . You then start to put bounds on |f(x) - f(a)| given , piling extra conditions on to as necessary until you can finally say triumphantly: "if satisfies all these conditions then whenever , therefore f is continuous at a".
Oh, I did not know that. Because many sources present these proofs in the way I did, so I just assumed it's the norm. Thanks!
16. (Original post by gagafacea1)
But...but...but that's how they write it in the books? And I don't see how yours is simpler than mine to be honest. Not saying you're wrong or anything, but as I said, I didn't want to use that min function.
I'm not sure what you mean by "that's how they write it in the books" - with ? If so, that's usually complex variable notation (which is fine here, but I'm not sure if you were intending it to be a proof about complex variables).

As for simplicity, yeah, maybe you're right. It's easier to understand an argument that you've written down yourself, so I guess that may be a draw.

And as for the min business, I clearly skimmed your post a bit too quickly, and didn't see that. Sorry. A lot of these proofs do it that way though. BTW, your penultimate line looked to me like you would need delta to be a function of epsilon which is itself a function of delta, but the clever choice of delta fixes that. The min approach avoids that in a different way.

Of course I have done some scratch work, but from what I've read in multiple places, when you present the proof, you're supposed to present it in the order I did. Though maybe not in actual exams?
A lot of books present in in this "rabbit out of the hat" way (which is dismal pedagogy IMHO), but in an exam, you won't be able to do that easily, as you'll find it tricky to start off with an appropriate choice of delta.
17. (Original post by atsruser)
I'm not sure what you mean by "that's how they write it in the books" - with ?
That was a reply to your "It's hard to read" comment. Meaning in the books, the proofs skip a lot of those "straight-forward" steps, so they become hard to read. But I see now that I'm not the only one who finds them hard to read, because I thought that all you experts can read those like reading a poem! lol

### Related university courses

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: November 12, 2015
Today on TSR

### Summer Bucket List is Back!

Start yours and you could win £150!

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