Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For $\lim_{x \rightarrow a}f(x) = L$, if $f(x)$ is not a constant, is $\delta(\epsilon)$ always a monotonically increasing function?

Alternatively, how does the definition of a limit guarantee that if $f(x)$ is not a constant, then a small $\epsilon$ will give me a small $\delta$?

share|improve this question
1  
that is an odd question. $\delta(\varepsilon)$ is not a function at all. you should try to rephrase your question –  Dominic Michaelis May 9 '13 at 12:01
    
If you're referring to the definition of the limit - the $\delta$ is not unique. I could take $\delta/2$ or $\delta/3$ if I want. –  wj32 May 9 '13 at 12:04
    
@Dominic Micahelis: According to the BHK-interpretation, $\delta(\epsilon)$ is indeed a function. I could be wrong though, I only recently learned about the BHK-interpretation. –  LMZ May 9 '13 at 12:05
    
I think in $\epsilon,\delta$ definition $\delta_\epsilon$ can be chosen to be increasing. But if $\delta_\epsilon$ is the supremum of possible values then I think it's not true. –  user59671 May 9 '13 at 12:24
    
@CutieKrait : How would I go about proving this? –  LMZ May 9 '13 at 12:26

3 Answers 3

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I'm trying to implement my idea above in comments. For each $n\in \Bbb N$ there's some $\delta_n>0$ such that for all $x$ with $0<|x-a|<\delta_{n}$ we have: $$|f(x)-L|<\frac{1}{n}$$

We can assume $\delta_n$ is decreasing. Now for each $0<\epsilon\le 1$, there's some $n_\epsilon\in \Bbb N$ such that: $$\frac{1}{2^{n_\epsilon+1}}<\epsilon\leq\frac{1}{2^{n_\epsilon}}$$

Let $$\delta_\epsilon=\delta_{2^{n_\epsilon+1}}$$ Then for all $x$ with $0<|x-a|< \delta_\epsilon$ we have: $$|f(x)-L|<\frac{1}{2^{n_\epsilon+1}}<\epsilon$$ and if $\epsilon_1<\epsilon_2$ then $n_{\epsilon_2}\le n_{\epsilon_1}$ and so

$$\delta_{\epsilon_1}=\delta_{2^{n_{\epsilon_1}+1}}\le \delta_{2^{n_{\epsilon_2}+1}}=\delta_{\epsilon_2}$$ So $\delta_{\epsilon}$ is increasing but not strictly.

share|improve this answer
    
Why can we assume that $\delta_n$ is decreasing? –  LMZ May 9 '13 at 13:37
    
@LMZ: see my comments above. replace $\delta_n$ with $\delta'_n$. –  user59671 May 9 '13 at 13:41
1  
Thanks! I'm impressed by how quickly you came up with that. –  LMZ May 9 '13 at 13:53
    
@LZM: julien's answer has more to say. –  user59671 May 9 '13 at 13:55
1  
Yes, you can. Directly: since the optimal $\delta_\epsilon$ is nondecreasing and positive, you can find $0<\delta'_\epsilon\leq \delta_\epsilon$ with $\delta'_\epsilon$ continuous. This needs to be written down properly, but it is not too hard and can be done with a piecewise affine function. –  1015 May 9 '13 at 18:27

You are free to choose $\delta_\epsilon$, so you could do it in a non monotonic way. For instance, with $f(x)=x$ and $a=L=0$, you could take $\delta_{\frac{1}{n}}=\frac{1}{n^2}$ for $n\geq 1$ and $\delta_\epsilon=\epsilon$ otherwise.

But if you take, for each $\epsilon>0$, the optimal $\delta_\epsilon$, then you get a nondecreasing function. I'll do it for a function between two metric spaces, more generally.

For each $\epsilon>0$, consider $\Delta_\epsilon$ the set of all $\delta>0$ such that $0<d(x,a)\leq \delta$ implies $|f(x)-L|\leq \epsilon$, that is $f(B'(a,\delta))\subseteq B(L,\epsilon)$. By definition of the limit, every $\Delta_\epsilon$ is non empty in $(0,+\infty)$. And the optimal $\delta$ is $ \delta_\epsilon:=\sup\Delta_\epsilon$, which is possibly infinite. Note that since I took large inequalities, when $\delta_\epsilon$ is finite, it belongs to $\Delta_\epsilon$. Note also that $\Delta_\epsilon$ is an interval. That is $\Delta_\epsilon=(0,\delta_\epsilon]$ in the finite case, and $(0,+\infty)$ otherwise.

Note: by $B'(a,\delta)$, I mean the closed ball of radius $\delta$ centered at $a$, intersected with the domain of $f$, with $a$ removed. By $B(L,\epsilon)$, I simply mean the closed ball of radius $\epsilon$ centered at $L$.

In any case, it is easily seen that, whenever $\epsilon<\epsilon'$, $\Delta_\epsilon\subseteq \Delta_{\epsilon'}$ whence $\sup\Delta_\epsilon\leq \sup\Delta_{\epsilon'}$, i.e. $\delta_\epsilon\leq \delta_{\epsilon'}$. This is simply because $B(L,\epsilon)\subseteq B(L,\epsilon')$, so $f(B'(a,\delta))\subseteq B(L,\epsilon)$ implies $f(B'(a,\delta))\subseteq B(L,\epsilon')$.

If $\delta_\epsilon=+\infty$ for every $\epsilon>0$, this means that $d(f(x),L)\leq \epsilon$ for every $x $ and every $\epsilon$. Thus $f(x)=L$ for every $x$ and $f$ is constant. So if $f$ is non constant, there exists $\epsilon_0>0$ such that $\delta_{\epsilon_0}<\infty$. And by monotonicity, $\delta_\epsilon\leq \delta_{\epsilon_0}<\infty$ for every $0<\epsilon\leq \epsilon_0$. And of course, if $f$ isconstant, then $\delta_\epsilon=+\infty$ for every $\epsilon>0$.

Finally, to answer your question. By monotonicity $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\delta_\epsilon$ exists, say it is $\delta$. We have $\delta\geq 0$. If we had $\delta>0$, then for every $0<d(x,a)|\leq \delta$, we get $0<d(x,a)\leq \delta_\epsilon$ for every $\epsilon>0$, so we would have $d(f(x),L)\leq \epsilon$. Hence $f(x)=L$ for every $0<d(x,a)\leq \delta$. That is $f$ is eventually constant. The converse is clear.

Conclusion: the optimal $\delta_\epsilon$ yields a nondecreasing function of $\epsilon$. It is eventually finite if and only if $f$ is not constant. And $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\delta_\epsilon=0$ (that is "a small $\epsilon$ gives you a small $\delta$") if and only if $f$ is not eventually constant. Note that $f(a)$ could be anything, in any case, if defined. So when I say (eventually) constant, that's up to this particular value.

Note: interestingly, even if $f$ is uniformly continuous (and even $1$-Lipschitz), the function $\epsilon\longmapsto \delta_\epsilon$ need not be continuous. Take $f(x)=x$ on $[0,1]$, $f(x)=2-x$ on $[1,2]$, and $f(x)=x-2$ on $[2,+\infty$. Then $\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}f(x)=0$. And for this limit, we have $\delta_\epsilon=2+\epsilon$ for $\epsilon\geq 1$, while $\delta_\epsilon=\epsilon$ for $0<\epsilon<1$. So $\delta_\epsilon$ is discontinuous at $1$.

share|improve this answer
    
is B(a,δ) deleted ball? –  user59671 May 9 '13 at 14:03
    
@CutieKrait Good question. It is the closed ball intersected with the domain of the function. –  1015 May 9 '13 at 14:06
    
but in limit definition $f(a)$ is usually ignored. –  user59671 May 9 '13 at 14:08
1  
@CutieKrait Yes. Another tricky cultural difference... –  1015 May 9 '13 at 14:18
1  
@CutieKrait Good question again. No, it need no be continuous. Take $a=f(a)=0$. And $f(x)=x$ on $[0,1]$, $f(x)=2-x$ on $[1,2]$, $f(x)=x-2$ on $[2,+\infty)$. Then $\delta_1=3$, but $\delta_\epsilon=\epsilon$ on $(0,1)$. –  1015 May 9 '13 at 15:37

It is easy to see that if you pick an optimal $\delta_\epsilon$ then for all $\epsilon < \epsilon'$ we have $\delta_{\epsilon} \leq \delta_{\epsilon'}$.

Indeed if $0< |x-a| < \delta_{\epsilon}$ then $|f(x)-L| < \epsilon < \epsilon'$ which means that $\delta_{\epsilon}$ works for $\epsilon'$. Hence $\delta_{\epsilon}$ is less or equal than the largest $\delta$ which works for $\epsilon'$, which is $\delta_{\epsilon'}$.

You cannot do better then this. For example we define $f:[-1,1]$ the following way: for $|x| \in (\frac{1}{n+1},\frac{1}{n}]$ let $f(x)=\frac{1}{n}$. $f(0)$ is irrelevant as you don't care about continuity.

Then $\lim_{x \to 0}f(x)=0$. And an easy computation shows that for all $\frac{1}{n+1}<\epsilon<\frac{1}{n}$ we have

$$\delta_{\epsilon} = \frac{1}{n+1}$$

This shows that $\delta_\epsilon$ is constant on $(\frac{1}{n+1},\frac{1}{n})$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.