For the function f ( x ) = 3 x 2 + 2 x + 1 , Alice wants Bob to show that x → 2 lim f ( x ) = 1 7 using the ε - δ definition of a limit.
Alice says, "I bet you can't choose a real number δ so that for all x in ( 2 − δ , 2 + δ ) , we'll have that ∣ f ( x ) − 1 7 ∣ < 0 . 5 ."
Which of the following four choices is the largest δ that Bob could give so that he completes Alice's challenge?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Can you explain the part "obviously"? Why can you take part of the equation |x-2| and set it to be smaller than 𝛿?
Log in to reply
Because it's a given value. by definition, we know that for some x, 0 < abs(x-2) < delta. Does that make sense?
to clarify what perry said, since (as question says) x can be (2-d, 2+d). Phrase this as an inequality to get 2-d<x<2+d. Now subtract 2 from all sides to get -d<x-2<d. Thus x-2<d
I'm not very good at calculus, but could you explain why you can replace 3x+8 and x-2 with larger values without breaking the inequality?
Log in to reply
What he has done is as follow; to obtain 3x, he has multiplied the entire inequality by 3, thus we have 3x-6, and the 3deltas.
to obtain 3x+8, he adds fourteen to the inequality, this gives us -3d+14<3x+8<3d+14.
Because for some delta greater than zero, |3delta + 14| |delta| < 0.5 will be a true statement. Since both |3x+8|<|3delta+14| and |x-2|<|delta| we arrive at |3x+8||x-2| < |3delta + 14||delta| < 0.5 and are now simply tasked with finding the largest value of delta which satisfies the right-hand inequality.
Log in to reply
Thanks! I'm better at calculus and realize that now :P
What justifies line 13: "(3delta + 14)(delta) < 0.5"? It does not follow from "|3x+8||x-2|<0.5" and "|3x+8|<(3delta+14)" and "|x-2|<(delta)"
Log in to reply
this is late but firstly, we have just calculated that 3x-8=3d+14, so we can substitute it. Regarding the delta it is multiplied by, referring to the question, x can be any value between 2-d and 2+d. Therefore 2-d<x<2+d meaning that if we subtract 2 from all sides then we get -d<x-2<d As a result, x-2 is less than the maximum value for the delta so is a real value fr te dela. Hence it is substitued in- to sum up- as (3d+14)(d)<0.5 Kind regards, Ben
This is beautiful, thank you.
Where do you get the 14? Subtracting 3 from 17?
It's like I have a lil version of my math professor right her on my phone lol THX
Hmm...Isn't it more simple to solve for the roots of the equation 3x^2 + 2x + 1 - 17.5 (using the quadratic formula) of which the positive root 2.035 is x+delta? To get delta we simple subtract 2 from 2.035 which gives us 0.035 which is approximately 0.03.
Log in to reply
I see what you're saying. I used this way too.
Do you use the quadratic formula to solve for delta or for x? I get lost at the end
Log in to reply
He used it to find delta but x lies between the two values of delta obtained from the quadratic formula
In order to ensure f ( x ) is no more than 0.5 units away from 17 for all x on the interval ( 2 − δ , 2 + δ ) , we will solve ∣ ∣ 3 x 2 + 2 x + 1 − 1 7 ∣ ∣ < 0 . 5 .
Solving this inequality yields two intervals: 1 . 9 6 4 0 1 < x < 2 . 0 3 5 4 5 (the other interval does not capture x = 2 , so we ignore it). The disparity from x = 2 in this interval is roughly 0.035, so any choice of δ less than this will be sufficient to respond to Alice's challenge. Out of the given answers, the largest is 0 . 0 3 .
Differential f'(2) = 20, hence change in f(x) over 2 δ would be (40\delta).
An alternative starting from the "obviously" part:
After obtaining the inequality
∣3x+8∣∣x−2∣< 0.5
We can divide both sides of the inequality by∣3x+8∣to get
∣x−2∣< 0.5 /∣3x+8∣
Since we know that
∣x−2∣< δ
We can LET δ = 0.5 /∣3x+8
Knowing that x approaches 2, plug 2 into the new inequality, and we can get:
δ = 0.5 /∣3*2+8∣
=> δ = 0.5 / 14
=> δ = 0.0357
This was so much easier to understand than John's answer. Thank you!
Delta should be less than epsilon. Here three options satisfy and as the question demands the largest among the three, we have 0.03.
That is not true in general. Look at the function f ( x ) = x / 2 and the point c = 2 . For ϵ = 1 the largest delta is δ = 2 .
Also here epsilon is 0.5 and the highest delta option is 0.05 therefore all delta options are less than epsilon in this particular question.
We have ∣ f ( x ) − 1 7 ∣ < 0 . 5
∣ 3 x 2 + 2 x − 1 6 ∣ < 0 . 5
∣ ( x − 2 ) ( 3 x + 8 ∣ < 0 . 5
As x approaches 2 , then 1 < x < 3
3 < 3 x < 9
1 1 < 3 x + 8 < 1 7
Then ∣ 3 x + 8 ∣ < 1 7 ........(i)
And ∣ x − 2 ∣ < δ ........(ii)
We get ∣ x − 2 ∣ ∣ 3 x + 6 ∣ < 1 7 δ = ϵ = 0 . 5
So δ = 1 7 0 . 5 = 0 . 0 2 9 4 1 1 7 6 4 7 0 5 8 8 2
By rounding this number we get δ = 0 . 0 3 is the answer.
The highest possible delta is slightly above 0.03, as the other person worked out, so something must have gone wrong there. In my case I just plugged in x = 2.03 to the equation and found y = 17.447, then deduced that since the upper side has a larger gradient and is so close to 17.5 I doubt 0.05 would work, therefore 0.03 must be the answer. Although the best/ideal way is to use algebra since that finds the actual maximum delta.
I am lazy so to solve by mental computation, I started with L = 17.5 I used the root formula that I got sqrt(202) at the sqrt (b^2 - 4ac) part to get x. I found that I should approximate so I tried 14^2 =196 to compare sqrt(202). So you can make sqrt(202) equals f(196+6) to use linear approximation for the sqrt part. So you approximate sqrt(202) to 1/(2sqrt(196))*6+14) which is 3/14+14 Back to the root formula, (12+3/14)/6. Is 12/6 + 1/28. Since I wanted to get delta and I have 2 as the first term of x from L, 1/28 is approximation of the answer. 1/28 is 0.03something something...
So 0.03 was reasonable
|3x^2 + 2x + 1 - 17| < .5 |3x^2 +2x -16| <.5 |(3x + 8)| |(x - 2)| < .5 divide both sides by |3x + 8| substitute x with c (2)
f(x)=3x^2 +2x+1
d x d f = 6x + 2
df = (6x + 2)*dx
0.5 = (6 * 2 + 2) * dx (become more accurate if dx approaches 0, and we know that dx is very small)
dx = 0.5/14
dx = 0.035714...
so we got 0.3
sorry I'm still learning english
Is this method always valid?
well, I think as long as the change in input(the value of x) is very small, this method would give a pretty accurate answer, and it's valid, cause again, differentiation is the ratio between change of output and change of input, when the change of input approaches zero
I also used this method since I was too lazy to find the solution using the quadratic formula, but its kind of circular logic, using derivatives to prove a limit.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
This is a classical approach to limits. :)
From the problem, we shall extract the important details that could help us answer the question stated. Thus, 0 < ∣ x − 2 ∣ < δ
f ( x ) = 3 x 2 + 2 x + 1 , and
∣ f ( x ) − 1 7 ∣ < 0 . 5
First, we have to evaluate the latter given. ∣ f ( x ) − 1 7 ∣ < 0 . 5 )
∣ 3 x 2 + 2 x + 1 − 1 7 ∣ < 0 . 5
∣ 3 x 2 + 2 x − 1 6 ∣ < 0 . 5
∣ ( 3 x + 8 ) ( x − 2 ) ∣ < 0 . 5
∣ 3 x + 8 ∣ ∣ x − 2 ∣ < 0 . 5
Obviously, from the strict inequality from the given, we can say that,
∣ x − 2 ∣ < δ
and to get ∣ 3 x + 8 ∣
− δ < x − 2 < δ
− 3 δ < 3 x − 6 < 3 δ
− 3 δ + 1 4 < 3 x + 8 < 3 δ + 1 4
∣ 3 x + 8 ∣ < 3 δ + 1 4
Hence,
∣ 3 x + 8 ∣ ∣ x − 2 ∣ < 0 . 5
( 3 δ + 1 4 ) ( δ ) < 0 . 5
3 δ 2 + 1 4 δ − 0 . 5 < 0
Using Quadratic formula, we will get
− 4 . 7 0 2 1 1 < x < 0 . 0 3 5 4 4
Ofcourse, 0 < x < δ
Thus,
0 < x < 0 . 0 3 5 4 4
and the nearest value to delta that falls under the continued inequality is 0 . 0 3