Proving that if $f:X rightarrow Y$ is a continuous function on $X$ such that $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ for $p_0 in X$, then $f(p_0)=P$.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(X', d)$ and $(Y, partial )$ be metric spaces so that $X subseteq X'$.



I'm trying to prove that if $f:X rightarrow Y$ is a continuous fucntion on $X$ such that $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ for $p_0 in X$, then $f(p_0)=P$.




My attempt:



Suppose not, so that $f(p_0) = Z ne P$. Then $ partial (Z, P) = r >0$.



$f$ being continuous on $X$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_1 > 0$ such that $d(x, x_0)< delta_1 Rightarrow partial (f(x), f(x_0))< epsilon$,



and $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_2 > 0$ such that $d(p, p_0)< delta_2 Rightarrow partial (f(p), P)< epsilon$.



In both cases let $epsilon = fracr2$ and let $delta = min (delta_1, delta_2)$. Choose $q ne p_0$ so that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. Then $partial (f(q), Z) < fracr2$ and $partial(f(q), P) < fracr2$. So $$r=partial(Z, P) le partial(f(q), Z) + partial(f(q), P) < fracr2 + fracr2$$ a contradiction.




The proof is dependent on the idea that there exists a $q$ such that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. What if this isn't the case? If the theorem fails when such $q$ doesn't exist, could someone provide an example? And if the theorem always holds, then what would be a complete proof (one that doesn't depend on the existence of $q$)?




I would appreciate any help/thoughts!










share|cite|improve this question





















  • The limit of a function at a point only makes sense when the point is not isolated in the domain of the function. That is, you can assume that such a $q$ exists.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:06










  • @amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:13










  • It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:15











  • @amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $ℝ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:20










  • No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:22














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(X', d)$ and $(Y, partial )$ be metric spaces so that $X subseteq X'$.



I'm trying to prove that if $f:X rightarrow Y$ is a continuous fucntion on $X$ such that $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ for $p_0 in X$, then $f(p_0)=P$.




My attempt:



Suppose not, so that $f(p_0) = Z ne P$. Then $ partial (Z, P) = r >0$.



$f$ being continuous on $X$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_1 > 0$ such that $d(x, x_0)< delta_1 Rightarrow partial (f(x), f(x_0))< epsilon$,



and $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_2 > 0$ such that $d(p, p_0)< delta_2 Rightarrow partial (f(p), P)< epsilon$.



In both cases let $epsilon = fracr2$ and let $delta = min (delta_1, delta_2)$. Choose $q ne p_0$ so that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. Then $partial (f(q), Z) < fracr2$ and $partial(f(q), P) < fracr2$. So $$r=partial(Z, P) le partial(f(q), Z) + partial(f(q), P) < fracr2 + fracr2$$ a contradiction.




The proof is dependent on the idea that there exists a $q$ such that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. What if this isn't the case? If the theorem fails when such $q$ doesn't exist, could someone provide an example? And if the theorem always holds, then what would be a complete proof (one that doesn't depend on the existence of $q$)?




I would appreciate any help/thoughts!










share|cite|improve this question





















  • The limit of a function at a point only makes sense when the point is not isolated in the domain of the function. That is, you can assume that such a $q$ exists.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:06










  • @amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:13










  • It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:15











  • @amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $ℝ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:20










  • No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:22












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Let $(X', d)$ and $(Y, partial )$ be metric spaces so that $X subseteq X'$.



I'm trying to prove that if $f:X rightarrow Y$ is a continuous fucntion on $X$ such that $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ for $p_0 in X$, then $f(p_0)=P$.




My attempt:



Suppose not, so that $f(p_0) = Z ne P$. Then $ partial (Z, P) = r >0$.



$f$ being continuous on $X$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_1 > 0$ such that $d(x, x_0)< delta_1 Rightarrow partial (f(x), f(x_0))< epsilon$,



and $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_2 > 0$ such that $d(p, p_0)< delta_2 Rightarrow partial (f(p), P)< epsilon$.



In both cases let $epsilon = fracr2$ and let $delta = min (delta_1, delta_2)$. Choose $q ne p_0$ so that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. Then $partial (f(q), Z) < fracr2$ and $partial(f(q), P) < fracr2$. So $$r=partial(Z, P) le partial(f(q), Z) + partial(f(q), P) < fracr2 + fracr2$$ a contradiction.




The proof is dependent on the idea that there exists a $q$ such that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. What if this isn't the case? If the theorem fails when such $q$ doesn't exist, could someone provide an example? And if the theorem always holds, then what would be a complete proof (one that doesn't depend on the existence of $q$)?




I would appreciate any help/thoughts!










share|cite|improve this question













Let $(X', d)$ and $(Y, partial )$ be metric spaces so that $X subseteq X'$.



I'm trying to prove that if $f:X rightarrow Y$ is a continuous fucntion on $X$ such that $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ for $p_0 in X$, then $f(p_0)=P$.




My attempt:



Suppose not, so that $f(p_0) = Z ne P$. Then $ partial (Z, P) = r >0$.



$f$ being continuous on $X$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_1 > 0$ such that $d(x, x_0)< delta_1 Rightarrow partial (f(x), f(x_0))< epsilon$,



and $lim limits_p to p_0 f(p) = P$ means $forall epsilon > 0, exists delta_2 > 0$ such that $d(p, p_0)< delta_2 Rightarrow partial (f(p), P)< epsilon$.



In both cases let $epsilon = fracr2$ and let $delta = min (delta_1, delta_2)$. Choose $q ne p_0$ so that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. Then $partial (f(q), Z) < fracr2$ and $partial(f(q), P) < fracr2$. So $$r=partial(Z, P) le partial(f(q), Z) + partial(f(q), P) < fracr2 + fracr2$$ a contradiction.




The proof is dependent on the idea that there exists a $q$ such that $d(q, p_0)<delta$. What if this isn't the case? If the theorem fails when such $q$ doesn't exist, could someone provide an example? And if the theorem always holds, then what would be a complete proof (one that doesn't depend on the existence of $q$)?




I would appreciate any help/thoughts!







real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing proof-explanation






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Sep 7 at 3:50









Leo

704516




704516











  • The limit of a function at a point only makes sense when the point is not isolated in the domain of the function. That is, you can assume that such a $q$ exists.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:06










  • @amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:13










  • It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:15











  • @amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $ℝ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:20










  • No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:22
















  • The limit of a function at a point only makes sense when the point is not isolated in the domain of the function. That is, you can assume that such a $q$ exists.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:06










  • @amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:13










  • It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:15











  • @amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $ℝ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
    – Leo
    Sep 7 at 4:20










  • No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
    – amsmath
    Sep 7 at 4:22















The limit of a function at a point only makes sense when the point is not isolated in the domain of the function. That is, you can assume that such a $q$ exists.
– amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06




The limit of a function at a point only makes sense when the point is not isolated in the domain of the function. That is, you can assume that such a $q$ exists.
– amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06












@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
– Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13




@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
– Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13












It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
– amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15





It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
– amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15













@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $ℝ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
– Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20




@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $ℝ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
– Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20












No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22




No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2908250%2fproving-that-if-fx-rightarrow-y-is-a-continuous-function-on-x-such-that%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest



































active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2908250%2fproving-that-if-fx-rightarrow-y-is-a-continuous-function-on-x-such-that%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest