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 $f(p_0)=P$.

Clash 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!
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing proof-explanation
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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!
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing proof-explanation
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.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06
@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13
It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15
@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $âÂÂ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20
No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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!
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing proof-explanation
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
real-analysis analysis proof-verification proof-writing proof-explanation
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.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06
@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13
It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15
@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $âÂÂ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20
No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
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.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06
@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13
It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15
@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $âÂÂ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20
No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦
â 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.
â 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.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06
@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13
@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13
It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15
It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15
@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $âÂÂ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20
@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $âÂÂ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20
No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22
No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22
 |Â
show 2 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:06
@amsmath. Really? The formal definition of a limit doesn't seem to necessarily imply that.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:13
It does. Read here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦) under "A more general definition..." The defintion of "limit" you use above is not entirely correct.
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:15
@amsmath. That definition concerns itself only with $âÂÂ$ as a metric space, where you can always find $q$.
â Leo
Sep 7 at 4:20
No, it doesn't. Read my comment more carefully. Alternatively, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/â¦
â amsmath
Sep 7 at 4:22