Calculus & Analysis Marathon & Questions (1 Viewer)

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Oh my bad, you are totally right. Take g to be the constant function g(t)=b. Then (fog) is identically f(b), which need not be L. This is also a counterexample to my other claim, but my original point about the well defined-ness of the limit of that trigonometric expression at t=0 stands.
 
Last edited:

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Oh my bad, you are totally right. Take g to be the constant function g(t)=b. Then (fog) is identically f(b), which need not be L. This is also a counterexample to my other claim, but my original point about the well defined-ness of the limit of that trigonometric expression at t=0 stands.
OK. So essentially the limit of that trig. expression, defined with domain D being what you said (basically can just take it to be some punctured neighbourhood of 0 with all points where sin(1/t) = 0 also removed, i.e. remove all the numbers of the form 1/(n*pi)) as t -> 0 will still be 2 (same as the limit of the expression with the change of variables x = sin(1/t)), because for any epsilon > 0, there'll exist a punctured neighbourhood of 0 such that for any t in this punctured neighbourhood and also D (i.e. in the intersection with D, which is indeed clearly non-empty as you explained), the trig. expression will be within epsilon of 2 (i.e. |f(t) – 2| < epsilon)? And is the reason this is the case basically from the change of variables, which is valid to use in this case?

Also, when you said counterexample to your other claim in that quoted post, which claim was this?
 
Last edited:

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

OK. So essentially the limit of that trig. expression, defined with domain D being what you said (basically can just take it to be some punctured neighbourhood of 0 with all points where sin(1/t) = 0 also removed, i.e. remove all the numbers of the form 1/(n*pi)) as t -> 0 will still be 2 (same as the limit of the expression with the change of variables x = sin(1/t)), because for any epsilon > 0, there'll exist a punctured neighbourhood of 0 such that for any t in this punctured neighbourhood and also D (i.e. in the intersection with D, which is indeed clearly non-empty as you explained), the trig. expression will be within epsilon of 2 (i.e. |f(t) – 2| < epsilon)?

Also, when you said counterexample to your other claim in that quoted post, which claim was this?
Yes.

And the reason things are okay here is that the point x=0 is not in the domain of the function f(x)=((1+x)^2-1)/x, so the countable family t near 0 for which g(t)=0 are domain holes (*) of (fog) rather than points at which we could have exceptional values of (fog)(t).

If you look at my counterexample a couple of posts ago, you will notice the key thing it exploits is that the limit definition works with punctured neighbourhoods, so I chose my g to map everything to the puncture. I.e. knowledge of lim_{x->p} f(x) tells us nothing about the behaviour of (fog) if g(x)=p always.


(*) These removable singularities are so rarely thought of as domain holes, we usually fill them in immediately.

If we gave f its natural continuous extension to all of R, and did the same for g. f(0)=2, g(0)=0. Then things work out because the composition of two continuous functions is continuous.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Also, when you said counterexample to your other claim in that quoted post, which claim was this?
"And yes, I think you can just use this change of variables, in that I claim the following:

Suppose f is a function defined on a set D in R^n, take n=1 if you like.
Suppose E is another subset of R^n and g:E->R^n is another function.

Then fog is a function defined on the g-preimage of D. (If this set is empty then it doesn't really make sense to call g a change of variables lol.)

Now if lim_{x->q} g(x)=p and lim_{x->p} f(x)=L for some q in E, p in D, L in R, then lim_{x->q} (fog)(x)=L."

^ Untrue as stated there.
 

InteGrand

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
6,109
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

"And yes, I think you can just use this change of variables, in that I claim the following:

Suppose f is a function defined on a set D in R^n, take n=1 if you like.
Suppose E is another subset of R^n and g:E->R^n is another function.

Then fog is a function defined on the g-preimage of D. (If this set is empty then it doesn't really make sense to call g a change of variables lol.)

Now if lim_{x->q} g(x)=p and lim_{x->p} f(x)=L for some q in E, p in D, L in R, then lim_{x->q} (fog)(x)=L."

^ Untrue as stated there.
Oh, I thought this was the first claim you were referring to (i.e. not the "other" one). So the one without the "other" was the one about the well-defined limit (which was of course true)?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Nomenclature for claims is getting confusing :p.

It is indeed true that the limit of f(g(t)) as t->0 is well defined.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

And more generally, that if f: D->R, we can make sense of lim_{x->p} f(x) for any p in the closure of D, not just the interior of D.

Of course these limits might not always exist.
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon



where



for k>n, and



otherwise.

As , , the monotonicity of this convergence following from basic calculus / other methods if you prefer.

Hence the monotone convergence theorem applies and

 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Here is an exercise to exhibit a couple of quirks of high dimensional solids. (Not as directly related to first year calculus courses as most things in this thread, but it is first year level stuff, and it is in the calculus/analysis ballpark.)

a) By generalising MX2 methods of volume calculation, find an expression for the volume of the n-dimensional ball of radius r in terms of the Gamma function



b) How does this quantity behave asymptotically as n->inf? Interpret this as a comparative statement about n-dimensional balls and n-dimensional cubes.

c) What happens to |B(r-d)|/|B(r)| as n-> inf? Here B(r) denotes the n-dimensional ball of radius r, and d < r is fixed. Interpret this result as a statement about the asymptotic concentration of mass in high dimensional balls.

d) Show that the the limiting behaviour in (c) can occur even if d(n) depends on n and monotonically decreases to zero. For which power rates of decay d(n)=n^(-p) will this happen?

e) Repeat c) and d), this time for strips about the equator. That is, what can we say about the limiting behaviour of |{x in B(r): |x_n| < d}|/|B(r)|? What does this say about the asymptotic concentration of mass in high dimensional balls? Can we take d(n)->0 and still have the same behaviour? At what power rate can d tend to zero with us having the same limiting behaviour?
 
Last edited:

dan964

what
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
3,473
Location
South of here
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Uni Grad
2019
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Here is an exercise to exhibit a couple of quirks of high dimensional solids. (Not as directly related to first year calculus courses as most things in this thread, but it is first year level stuff, and it is in the calculus/analysis ballpark.)

a) By generalising MX2 methods of volume calculation, find an expression for the volume of the n-dimensional ball of radius r in terms of the Gamma function



b) How does this quantity behave asymptotically as n->inf? Interpret this as a comparative statement about n-dimensional balls and n-dimensional cubes.

c) What happens to |B(r-d)|/|B(r)| as n-> inf? Here B(r) denotes the n-dimensional ball of radius r, and d < r is fixed. Interpret this result as a statement about the asymptotic concentration of mass in high dimensional balls.

d) Show that the the limiting behaviour in (c) can occur even if d(n) depends on n and monotonically decreases to zero. For which power rates of decay d(n)=n^(-p) will this happen?

e) Repeat c) and d), this time for strips about the equator. That is, what can we say about the limiting behaviour of |{x in B(r): |x_n| < d}|/|B(r)|? What does this say about the asymptotic concentration of mass in high dimensional balls? Can we take d(n)->0 and still have the same behaviour? At what power rate can d tend to zero with us having the same limiting behaviour?
what definition of the gamma function are you assume. Also is there a difference between and ?
 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

what definition of the gamma function are you assume. Also is there a difference between and ?
s is a variable used only in the definition of the Gamma function, n refers to dimension.
 

Paradoxica

-insert title here-
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,556
Location
Outside reality
Gender
Male
HSC
2016
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

Easy exercise. Leave your answer completely in terms of the Gamma function, in as simple a form you can muster.

 

seanieg89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,662
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Re: First Year Uni Calculus Marathon

And here's a new one simpler than all three of the above.

 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top