Uniform Continuity : Epsilon-delta Proof of Continuity of f(x) = x ^ (1/3)

Related BrainMass Solutions

• Uniform limit of continuous functions

  Then, we'll have: for the given epsilon>0 we have found delta>0 such that |f(x)-f(c)| <= |fn(x) - f(x)|+|fn(x)-fn(c)|+|fn(c)-f(c)| < epsilon/3 + epsilon/3 + epsilon/3=epsilon and thus the continuity of f(x

• Epsilon-Delta Definition of Continuity

  84731 Epsilon-Delta Definition of Continuity Proof that f is continuous for each x in D in accordance with the epsilon-delta defitinition of continuity(can use the defintion involving f(x+h) (2 problems) f(x)=x/(x+1), D={x in R:x>-1} (can restrict

• Derivatives, Epsilon-Delta Proof of Continuity and Integrals

  =3f(x)+5 Derivatives, Epsilon-Delta Proof of Continuity and Integrals are investigated.

• Real analysis

  -Supply a proof for this theorem by using either the epsilon and delta characterization of continuity or the sequential characterization of continuity (If (x_n)->c (with x_n belong to A), then f(x_n)->f(c)) File Attached (Answer-4.pdf) This is a proof

• Functions, Limits & Continuity

  Then give a value for delta > 0 such that for all x satisfying o<|x-x sub 0|<delta the inequality |f(x)-L|< Epsilon holds.

• Determining where a function is continuous, Epsilon-Delta Continuity Problem

  113018 Determining where a function is continuous, Epsilon-Delta Continuity Problem Determine where the function f(x) = x + [|x^2|] - [|x|] is continuous I don't understand how to work this problem.

• Real Analysis : Proofs - Uniform Continuity

  S(4): However, |f(x)-f(y)| = |n-(n+1)| = 1 = ε S(5): This contradicts the definition of uniform continuity (i.e., this satisfies the negation of that definition), so f is not uniformly continuos on (0,1).

• Proof of Uniform Continuity

  49983 Proof of Uniform Continuity Show that the function f(x) = √x is uniformly continuous on [0,∞). Note: This is from a beginning analysis class. We can only use the definition of uniform continuity.

• Epsilon-delta limits

  I hope from the last part of the proof it became clear why we chose delta = epsilon/2. Note though, we could have chosen delta = epsilon/3 etc.. - and the proof would still be valid.