Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Suppose g(-x) = -g(x) for any x. Show that if g is continuous at 0 then g(0)=0
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SWISH99)
    Suppose g(-x) = -g(x) for any x. Show that if g is continuous at 0 then g(0)=0
    Set x=0.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SWISH99)
    Suppose g(-x) = -g(x) for any x. Show that if g is continuous at 0 then g(0)=0
    In this case g(x) is an odd function, so g(-0) = -g(0). Then it's an easy implication from there.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotNotBatman)
    In this case g(x) is an odd function, so g(-0) = -g(0). Then it's an easy implication from there.
    You haven't mentioned continuity though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    You haven't mentioned continuity though.
    Since the result holds without needing continuity, this is perhaps unsurprising.

    (Possibly the original question only specified f(x)=-f(-x) for x not equal to 0; the conclusion then requires continuity).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Since the result holds without needing continuity, this is perhaps unsurprising.

    (Possibly the original question only specified f(x)=-f(-x) for x not equal to 0; the conclusion then requires continuity).
    y=1/x is a counterexample, no? Seems to me that continuity guarantees definedness at x=0.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    y=1/x is a counterexample, no? Seems to me that continuity guarantees definedness at x=0.
    I agree, The question is probably looking for you to justify letting x=0 with the fact that g is continuous at 0.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    You haven't mentioned continuity though.
    But the question assumes continuity, so g(x) is defined at x=0.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    y=1/x is a counterexample, no?
    I wouldn't say it's a counterexample to the question as quoted. Unless told otherwise, there's no reason to assume that 0 is a "special" point as far as being able to apply f(x) = -f(-x), or in terms of f being defined (in fact, there are strong reasons to say it makes no sense at all to suggest f might not be defined at 0).

    As I said in my reply, I suspect there's some missing preamble to the question.

    Seems to me that continuity guarantees definedness at x=0.
    Well yes, but note that continuity guarantees from the definition that both

    f(0) is defined

    and

    \lim_{x \to 0} f(x) = f(0)

    In other words, there's no "analysis" required to deduce f(0) is defined - it's directly one of the conditions of continuity.

    The only way I see any "meat" here is if as I said before, the question did not mean to state that f(x) = -f(-x) holds at x = 0.

    Then if you assume f(0) = \epsilon \neq 0, by using the definition of continuity and considering points slightly above and slightly below 0, you can deduce a contradiction.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    I wouldn't say it's a counterexample to the question as quoted. Unless told otherwise, there's no reason to assume that 0 is a "special" point as far as being able to apply f(x) = -f(-x), or in terms of f being defined (in fact, there are strong reasons to say it makes no sense at all to suggest f might not be defined at 0).
    Sorry - short of time. But it seems that we have to interpret the question wording rather widely, else the mention of continuity seems to be irrelevant and the question pretty vacuous - if we assume g(x) is defined at 0, then it's trivial.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotNotBatman)
    But the question assumes continuity, so g(x) is defined at x=0.
    I think the question tries to refer awkwardly to two different g's - the first lot are odd, and the second lot are continuous. It's only the intersection of both where the result holds. Anyway, gotta go - I'll leave you to further learned discussions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    Sorry - short of time. But it seems that we have to interpret the question wording rather widely, else the mention of continuity seems to be irrelevant and the question pretty vacuous - if we assume g(x) is defined at 0, then it's trivial.
    But deducing g(x) is defined at 0 from g cts at 0 is also trivial. It's literally part of the definition of continuity.

    The OP posted the full question elsewhere; there's not actually any more detail, but from the extra context, I'm fairly sure the lecturer was *aiming* at establishing something along the lines that "if f is defined for x not 0, and f (where defined) is odd , then the only way to define f(0) such that f is cts is f(0)=0".

    Unfortunately the actual question asked doesn't say anything about "x not 0", which makes the whole thing meaningless.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.