Comment

Comment on So much

I don’t think you can use the x0 plus minus delta in the bracket (or anywhere), because then the function that’s 1 on the rationals and 0 on the irrationals is continuous, because no matter what positive number epsilon is, you can pick delta=7 and x0 plus minus delta is exactly as rational as x0 is so the distance to L is zero, so under epsilon.

You have to say that whenever |x - 0x|<delta, |f(x) - L|<epsilon.

source

Sort:hotnew top

affiliate@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
unless f(x~0~ ± δ) is some kind of funky shorthand for the set { f(x) : x ∈ ℝ, | x - x~0~ | < δ }. in that case, the definition would be “correct”.

it’s much more likely that it’s a typo, but analysts have been known to cook up some pretty bizarre notation from time to time, so it’s not totally out of the question.

source
- davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  There’s notation for that - (x0 - δ, x0 + δ), so you could say
  f(x0 - δ, x0 + δ) ⊂ (L - ε, L + ε)
  
  source
  - affiliate@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    that would be a lot clearer. i’ve just been burned in the past by notation in analysis.
    
    my two most painful memories are:
    
    in the (baby) rudin textbook, he uses f(x+) to denote the limit of _f _from the right, and f(x-) to denote the limit of f from the left.
    
    in friedman analysis textbook, he writes the direct sum of vector spaces as M + N instead of using the standard notation M ⊕ N. to make matters worse, he uses M ⊕ N to mean M is orthogonal to N.
    
    there’s the usual “null spaces” instead of “kernel” nonsense. ive also seen lots of analysis books use the → symbol to define functions when they really should have been using the ↦ symbol.
    
    at this point, i wouldn’t put anything past them.
    
    source
    davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Egregious. I feel your pain.
    
    source