Quantcast
Channel: Active questions tagged real-analysis - Mathematics Stack Exchange
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 9517

Does application of epsilon delta definition for limits of a real function not require the archimedian property at all?

$
0
0

I believe it doesn't but it could be I am wrong.

If we have a sequence $ \{\frac{1}{n}\}_n$ then the archimedian property plays a central role in proving the limit. For instance, let $\epsilon$ be an arbitary real number, then by a well known corollary of the archimedian property, we have that there exists an $N_{\epsilon}$ such that:

$$ \frac{1}{\epsilon} < N_{\epsilon}$$

We then claim that this is the $ N_{\epsilon}$ required to satisfy the epsilon criteria. I also notice that pretty much every proof of epsilon criteria I've done required some sort of use of archimedean property.

However, I think this is completly unnecessary for epsilon delta criterion. For example let us prove that $x^2$ is continous at any point a $x=a$ in the domain. We can let, $$\delta = \min\left(1, \dfrac{\epsilon}{2|x_0| + 1}\right)$$

In the answer explaining it, it can be seen that no mention of archimedian property is there. The construction seems to be well defined as a consequence of the field structure of $\mathbb{R}$.

If I am indeed correct, then would it be a correct inference to make that epsilon delta proofs in some non trivial sense require less to prove than the epsilon criteria?


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 9517

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>