Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1, Review of
CalculusReview of Limits And Absolute Value
C. Byron Harding
December 19, 2015
Hello,
At times, life throws a curve ball. So, I am taking time to document a review path that I use
to review crucial topics for learning numerical methods[1;2]. It will help me later if I must return
after some time away, and I will learn LaTex as well.
Denition 1.1.
lim f (x) = L
(1)
xx0
if, given any
implies that
>0
S,
0 < |x x0 | <
After many years of not doing math, the above abstract description of limits seemed daunting. I
felt that I understood it, but I also felt that I was mistaken. So, I decided to review my math books.
From [3;3a], I discovered that the above description of limits is the Rigorous Approach [3]. There
are some major details overlooked in the numerical method textbook[1], but, hey, a person is suppose to know calculus or review topics of calculus before embarking.
As an example, my calculus textbook shows
lim f (x) = L
(2)
xa
[Page 130, 3]
actually describes, intuitively[3], that the value of f(x) approaches L as x approaches a from
either side.
The limit in (sic 2) is intended to describe the behavior of f when x is near but dierent
L.
Note, the use of a graphic really helps me understand because it is an example, but I need to
get back to more abstract thinking.
Also, I need to emphasize that x can
approach
a but
not take on
lim
x0
sin(x)
=1
x
(3)
If x became 0, we would have an undened resultdivision by zero is innity. Still, the limit can
become 1.
I should remind myself that the mathematics of absolute values really means that a distance is
measured from two dierent directions to the center point.
is equivalent to
|f (x) L| <
is given to us.
such that the conditions in the denitions are fullled. The idea is to nd a formula
for
in terms of
so
is
.[3]
lim (3x 5) = 1
(4)
x2
Solution. We must show that given any positive number , we can nd a positive number
that
f (x) = 3x 5
such
satises[3]
(5)
(6)
whenever x satises
To nd
3
(7)
=
To prove that this choice for
3
(8)
3 , it follows
0 < |x 2| <
3
(9)
Absolute Value Point: Remember, |x 2| < 3 is the same as 3 < x 2 < 3 and has a solution
set of 2
3 < x < 2 + 3 . The latter is a result of Theorem for distance formula between points on,
for example, a number line[3].
In fact, I should review a little more about absolute values and provide a diagram to help explain
the above results.
|| = if 0 and || = if 0
As an example,
|5| = 5
and
(10)
| 5| = (5) = 5.
The above denition is quite important and must be remembered technically when working with
complicated problems.
> 0
(11)
|m| is equivalent to m
(12)
With the above denitions (10) and properties (11-12), and the below diagram, I can better
understand and derive the alternative form of the inequality and the solution set of (9) given above.
In fact, I will use a general diagram.
Must remember that the absolute value measures distance. In the case of the above diagram,
|x a|
has a value
(x a) > 0
|x a| = (x a)(10).
Also, the
property(11) tells us
(13)
a <x<+a
(14)
Denition 1.1.
lim f (x) = L
(15)
xx0
if, given any
implies that
>0
x0 = a
S,
0 < |x x0 | <
0 < |x x0 | <
As such, I need
to supply some more properties of absolute values and one particular inequality property that is
common sense but I easily overlook, abstract sense, unless I plug in the numbers. Yep, it is really easy. To be most eective, a review of properties and examples in my math books is advised too.
If
|a| 0
| a| = |a|
|ab| = |a||b|
|a + b| |a| + |b|
|a| = 0
if and only if
a = 0.
Triangle inequality
a < b,
then
1
a
>
1
b
Yes, I know that the a larger denominator means a smaller outcome and vice versa. I just forget
it when doing variable math.
The MIT professor begins the very important discussion from video time: 35:12 to end at 46
minutes[5].
To compliment his discussion, and a nice review of Theorem 2.5.1 (Page 119; 3), I provide the
important theorem 2.5.1
Theorem 2.5.1.
limxto .
If
L1 = lim f (x)
and
L2 = lim g(x)
or
(16a)
(16b)
(16c)
f (x)
lim f (x)
L1
=
=
g(x)
lim g(x)
L2
p
p
p
(e) lim n f (x) = n lim f (x) = n L1
(d) lim
(16d)
(16e)
Closing Quote
In truth, the above examples are simplied. Real world problems will not likely work out so
easily. Here is what Dr. Anton had to say:
Example 1 is about as easy a limit proof can get; most limit proofs require a little more
algebraic and logical ingenuity. (sic: read basic knowledge should be well understood.)
The reader who nds
00
00
the concepts and techniques are intrinsically dicult. In fact, a precise understanding
of limits evaded the nest mathematical minds for centuries.[3]
References:
[1] Mathews, John H.; Fink, Kurtis, D. (1999).
(Third
Variable Calculus, Unit !: Lecture 5: A More Rigorous Approach to Limits. Retrieved (2015, Dec.
28). youtube[online].