Skip to main content

Question 5.8

Solutions

TZ
leumasicOfficial

3 months ago

a)

Both

limxa[f(x)+g(x)]andlimxa[f(x)g(x)]\lim_{x \to a} [f(x)+g(x)] \qquad\text{and}\qquad \lim_{x \to a} [f(x)g(x)]

can exist.

For arbitrary aa, let

f(x)={0,xa,1,otherwise,g(x)={1,xa,0,otherwise.f(x)= \begin{cases} 0, & x \le a, \\ 1, & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases} \qquad g(x)= \begin{cases} 1, & x \le a, \\ 0, & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}

Hence, we have that f(x)+g(x)=1f(x)+g(x)=1 and f(x)g(x)=0f(x)g(x)=0. Both resulting functions are constant and thus have limits defined at x=ax=a.

b)

Yes, limxag(x)\lim_{x \to a}g(x) must exist.

Let

lf=limxaf(x),L=limxa[f(x)+g(x)],lg=Llf.l_f = \lim_{x \to a} f(x), \qquad L = \lim_{x \to a} [f(x)+g(x)], \qquad l_g = L-l_f.

Choose any ϵ>0\epsilon > 0. By definition, there exist δ1\delta_1 and δ2\delta_2 such that

0<xa<δ1    f(x)lf<ϵ2,0<xa<δ2    f(x)+g(x)(lf+lg)<ϵ2.\begin{align*} 0<|x-a|<\delta_1 &\implies |f(x)-l_f| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}, \\ 0<|x-a|<\delta_2 &\implies |f(x)+g(x)-(l_f+l_g)| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}. \end{align*}

Let δ=min(δ1,δ2)\delta = \min(\delta_1,\delta_2). We thus have, for 0<xa<δ0<|x-a|<\delta,

g(x)lg=g(x)lg+f(x)f(x)+lflf=f(x)+g(x)(lf+lg)(f(x)lf)f(x)+g(x)(lf+lg)+f(x)lf<ϵ2+ϵ2=ϵ.\begin{align*} |g(x)-l_g| &= |g(x)-l_g+f(x)-f(x)+l_f-l_f| \\ &= |f(x)+g(x)-(l_f+l_g)-(f(x)-l_f)| \\ &\le |f(x)+g(x)-(l_f+l_g)| + |f(x)-l_f| \\ &< \frac{\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2} = \epsilon. \end{align*}

c)

limxa[f(x)+g(x)]\lim_{x \to a} [f(x)+g(x)]

cannot exist if limxaf(x)\lim_{x \to a} f(x) exists and limxag(x)\lim_{x \to a} g(x) does not exist. This can be proven with a proof by contradiction along the lines of the proof in b). We show an alternative proof that follows from the statement proven in b). We define the following propositions:

P:limxaf(x) exists,Q:limxag(x) exists,R:limxa[f(x)+g(x)] exists.\begin{align*} P &: \lim_{x \to a} f(x) \text{ exists}, \\ Q &: \lim_{x \to a} g(x) \text{ exists}, \\ R &: \lim_{x \to a} [f(x)+g(x)] \text{ exists}. \end{align*}

We want to prove that

P¬Q    ¬R.P \land \neg Q \implies \neg R.

This is equivalent to

¬(P¬Q)¬R¬PQ¬R¬P¬RQ¬(PR)QPR    Q.\begin{align*} \neg(P \land \neg Q) \lor \neg R &\equiv \neg P \lor Q \lor \neg R \\ &\equiv \neg P \lor \neg R \lor Q \\ &\equiv \neg(P \land R) \lor Q \\ &\equiv P \land R \implies Q. \end{align*}

and because the last statement was proven in b), so the original implication is also true.

d)

limxag(x)\lim_{x \to a} g(x)

does not necessarily exist.

As a counterexample, let f(x)=0f(x)=0 and g(x)=1xg(x)=\frac{1}{x}. Notice that

limx0f(x)g(x)=0,\lim_{x \to 0} f(x)g(x)=0,

but limx0g(x)\lim_{x \to 0} g(x) does not exist.

0
Submit a solution
Optional • Markdown

Sign in to share your solution for this question.

Sign in

Navigate

Q 5.8

Navigate

Q 5.8