How can I prove that the function $$ f:\mathbb R\rightarrow \mathbb R$$ $$ x\mapsto\frac{1}{2}x^2$$ is continuous?

I currently have: $$ \epsilon > 0, \delta > 0$$ $$ |x-a| < \delta \rightarrow \left|\frac{1}{2}x^2-\frac{1}{2}a^2\right| < \epsilon$$ $$ \left|\frac{x^2}{2}-\frac{a^2}{2}\right|<\epsilon $$ $$ \left|\frac{x^2-a^2}{2}\right| < \epsilon $$

But at this point im not sure what to do.

  • $\begingroup$ Please introduce properly your variables. $\endgroup$
    – Lelouch
    May 15 at 11:23

2 Answers 2


Use the fact that $$ x^2-a^2=(x-a)(x+a)=(x-a)\bigl((x-a)+2a\bigr). $$ As a consequence, $$ \left|\frac{x^2-a^2}2\right|\le\frac12\bigl(|x-a|\bigl(|x-a|+2|a|\bigr)\bigr) $$ And if $|x-a|<1$, $|x-a|+2|a|<1+2|a|$. Therefore, $$ \left|\frac{x^2-a^2}2\right|\le|x-a|\frac{1+2|a|}2. $$ So, take $\delta=\min\left\{1,\frac{2\varepsilon}{1+2|a|}\right\}$, and then $$ |x-a|<\delta\implies\left|\frac{x^2-a^2}2\right|<\varepsilon. $$


Show that $f(x) = ~\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}x^2$ is continuous at any $x = a ~: a \in \Bbb{R}$.

Different people use different approaches to constructing an $\epsilon, \delta$ demonstration.

My approach is to start with the assumption that $x$ is in a neighborhood around $a$, derive the necessary relationship between $\delta$ and $\epsilon$, and then (from scratch) verify that the relation accomplishes what I want it to accomplish.

I am going to assume that the value of $a$ for which continuity is being established is $> 0$. This assumption will simplify the proof. The demonstrations when $a = 0$, or $a < 0$ would be similar.

I will start with the idea that $0 < |x - a| < \delta. $

This implies that $-\delta < x - a < \delta \implies $

$$ a - \delta < x < a + \delta. \tag1 $$

My goal will be to show that for any $\epsilon > 0$, I can choose $\delta > 0$ so that:

$$ \left|\frac{1}{2} \left(x^2 - a^2\right)\right| < \epsilon $$

$$\iff ~ \frac{a^2}{2} - \epsilon < \frac{x^2}{2} < \frac{a^2}{2} + \epsilon. \tag2 $$

Since this answer is a derivation, you are seeing my step-by-step thinking.

Care is needed here. I know that if $r,s$ are any two positive values, then

$$r < s \iff r^2 < s^2. \tag3 $$

I know that $a$ is positive. I plan to impose some artificial constraints on $\delta.$ One of them will be that $\delta \leq (a/2)$. This will guarantee that if $x$ is in a neighborhood around $(a)$, of radius $\delta$, that this entire neighborhood will be positive. This will allow me to use the idea in (3) above.

Examining the RHS of (1) and (2),

I know that $\displaystyle ~\frac{x^2}{2} < \frac{a^2}{2} + a\delta + \frac{\delta^2}{2}.$

What I want is for $\displaystyle ~\frac{x^2}{2} < \frac{a^2}{2} + \epsilon.$

One way to accomplish this is to somehow have

$$ a\delta + \frac{\delta^2}{2} < \epsilon. \tag4 $$

Examining the LHS of (1) and (2),

I know that $\displaystyle ~\frac{a^2}{2} - a\delta + \frac{\delta^2}{2} < ~\frac{x^2}{2}.$

What I want is for $\displaystyle ~\frac{a^2}{2} - \epsilon < \frac{x^2}{2}.$

One way to accomplish this is to have

$$ - \epsilon < -a\delta + \frac{\delta^2}{2}. \tag5 $$

So, under the assumption that $a > 0$, and that $\delta < (a/2)$, I need to derive a relationsip between $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ so that the inequalities in (4) and (5) will be implied.

Then, with the derived relationship in place, I will (from scratch) verify that the relationship does what I want.

As an arbitrary personal choice, when I attack (4) above, I want to stay linear. So, I will impose the additional constraint on $\delta$ that $\delta \leq 1.$ This implies that $~\displaystyle \frac{\delta^2}{2} < \delta.$

This implies that the LHS in (4) above is now strictly less than $(a+1)\delta.$

So, tentatively, my constraints on $\delta$ will be

$$\delta \leq (a/2), ~~\delta \leq 1, ~~\delta \leq \frac{\epsilon}{a+2}.$$

This is accomplished by specifying that

$$\delta = \min\left(\frac{a}{2}, 1, \frac{\epsilon}{a+2}\right). \tag6 $$

Note that under the assumption that $a > 0,$ you must have that $(a+2) > 0.$


$~\displaystyle \delta \leq \frac{\epsilon}{a+2} \implies (a+2) \delta \leq \epsilon \implies $

$~\displaystyle -\epsilon \leq - (a+2)\delta < -a\delta.$

So, the specification in (6) above also works for the inequality in (5) above.

Opinions vary whether I can construe the analysis as done, at this point. In my opinion, I have to demonstrate that when $a > 0$, the combined premises in (1) and (6) above imply that the conclusion in (2) is reached.

I have shown that the assumption that $~\displaystyle \delta \leq \frac{a}{2}~$ implies that it is sufficient to show that the results in (4) and (5) are implied. These combined results will then imply that the result in (2) above is established.

$~\displaystyle \delta \leq 1 \implies \frac{\delta^2}{2} < \delta.$


$$a\delta + \frac{\delta^2}{2} < (a + 1)\delta < (a + 2)\delta \leq \epsilon. \tag7 $$

Thus, I have verified that the constraint in (6) implies the constraint in (4).

Further, the analysis in (7) implies that

$$a\delta < \epsilon \implies -\epsilon < -a\delta.$$

Therefore, the constraint in (5) has also been implied.

Therefore, the assumption that $a > 0$, coupled with the constraints in (1) and (6) imply that the constraint in (2) above is satisfied, as required.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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