need help understanding a continuity proof












3












$begingroup$


Can someone help with intuition behind this statement :



statement



Let $f : [0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be defined by:



$$f(x)=begin{cases}
0 & xnotin mathbb{Q} \
frac{1}{n} & text{if} , x=frac{m}{n}in mathbb{Q}
end{cases}
$$



If $xin [0,1]$ $mathbb{Q}$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$



Proof:



$forall varepsilon >0 , exists , N : frac{1}{N}<varepsilon$, since $xneq frac{m}{n} forall , m,n in mathbb{N},$ there is some $delta_k$ such that the interval $(x-delta_k,x+delta_k)$ has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$. let $delta= min{delta_1,...,delta_{n-1}}$. Then the interval $(x-delta, x+delta)$ contains no points of the form $frac{m}{n}$ for $n=2,3,...,N$. Hence if $yin (x-delta,x+delta), |f(y)-f(x)|=|f(y)-0|leq frac{1}{n}$ for $ngeq N+1$ so $|f(y)-0|<varepsilon$ which proves that $f$ is continuous at $x.$



Question



Why does there exist a $delta_k$ such that the interval has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$?






real-analysis continuity proof-explanation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    Can someone help with intuition behind this statement :



    statement



    Let $f : [0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be defined by:



    $$f(x)=begin{cases}
    0 & xnotin mathbb{Q} \
    frac{1}{n} & text{if} , x=frac{m}{n}in mathbb{Q}
    end{cases}
    $$



    If $xin [0,1]$ $mathbb{Q}$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$



    Proof:



    $forall varepsilon >0 , exists , N : frac{1}{N}<varepsilon$, since $xneq frac{m}{n} forall , m,n in mathbb{N},$ there is some $delta_k$ such that the interval $(x-delta_k,x+delta_k)$ has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$. let $delta= min{delta_1,...,delta_{n-1}}$. Then the interval $(x-delta, x+delta)$ contains no points of the form $frac{m}{n}$ for $n=2,3,...,N$. Hence if $yin (x-delta,x+delta), |f(y)-f(x)|=|f(y)-0|leq frac{1}{n}$ for $ngeq N+1$ so $|f(y)-0|<varepsilon$ which proves that $f$ is continuous at $x.$



    Question



    Why does there exist a $delta_k$ such that the interval has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$?






    real-analysis continuity proof-explanation







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      1



      $begingroup$


      Can someone help with intuition behind this statement :



      statement



      Let $f : [0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be defined by:



      $$f(x)=begin{cases}
      0 & xnotin mathbb{Q} \
      frac{1}{n} & text{if} , x=frac{m}{n}in mathbb{Q}
      end{cases}
      $$



      If $xin [0,1]$ $mathbb{Q}$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$



      Proof:



      $forall varepsilon >0 , exists , N : frac{1}{N}<varepsilon$, since $xneq frac{m}{n} forall , m,n in mathbb{N},$ there is some $delta_k$ such that the interval $(x-delta_k,x+delta_k)$ has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$. let $delta= min{delta_1,...,delta_{n-1}}$. Then the interval $(x-delta, x+delta)$ contains no points of the form $frac{m}{n}$ for $n=2,3,...,N$. Hence if $yin (x-delta,x+delta), |f(y)-f(x)|=|f(y)-0|leq frac{1}{n}$ for $ngeq N+1$ so $|f(y)-0|<varepsilon$ which proves that $f$ is continuous at $x.$



      Question



      Why does there exist a $delta_k$ such that the interval has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$?






      real-analysis continuity proof-explanation







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Can someone help with intuition behind this statement :



      statement



      Let $f : [0,1]rightarrow mathbb{R}$ be defined by:



      $$f(x)=begin{cases}
      0 & xnotin mathbb{Q} \
      frac{1}{n} & text{if} , x=frac{m}{n}in mathbb{Q}
      end{cases}
      $$



      If $xin [0,1]$ $mathbb{Q}$, then $f$ is continuous at $x$



      Proof:



      $forall varepsilon >0 , exists , N : frac{1}{N}<varepsilon$, since $xneq frac{m}{n} forall , m,n in mathbb{N},$ there is some $delta_k$ such that the interval $(x-delta_k,x+delta_k)$ has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$. let $delta= min{delta_1,...,delta_{n-1}}$. Then the interval $(x-delta, x+delta)$ contains no points of the form $frac{m}{n}$ for $n=2,3,...,N$. Hence if $yin (x-delta,x+delta), |f(y)-f(x)|=|f(y)-0|leq frac{1}{n}$ for $ngeq N+1$ so $|f(y)-0|<varepsilon$ which proves that $f$ is continuous at $x.$



      Question



      Why does there exist a $delta_k$ such that the interval has no points of the form $frac{m}{k+1}$?






      real-analysis continuity proof-explanation




      real-analysis continuity proof-explanation






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 16 '18 at 3:28









      Gaby Alfonso

      972317




      972317










      asked Dec 16 '18 at 2:04









      FrankFrank

      16210




      16210






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          $x$ is irrational and also once we fix $k$, there are only finitely many $m$ that you can pick.



          Hence if a neighborhood of $x$ is small enough, we can exclude those numbers of the form of $frac{m}{k+1}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:49










          • $begingroup$
            First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Siong Thye Goh
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:19



















          0












          $begingroup$

          We know that $x$ is between two numbers divided by $k+1$, meaning $frac {m_1}{k+1}leq xleq frac {m_2}{k+1}$ for some $m_1,m_2leq k+1$, then if we take $$delta_kleq min (|x-frac {m_1}{k+1}|,|x-frac {m_2}{k+1}|)$$ we get the required the in a $delta_k$ neighbourhood of $x$, there are no points of the mentioned form.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
            $endgroup$
            – NL1992
            Dec 19 '18 at 16:15













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3042156%2fneed-help-understanding-a-continuity-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          $x$ is irrational and also once we fix $k$, there are only finitely many $m$ that you can pick.



          Hence if a neighborhood of $x$ is small enough, we can exclude those numbers of the form of $frac{m}{k+1}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:49










          • $begingroup$
            First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Siong Thye Goh
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:19
















          0












          $begingroup$

          $x$ is irrational and also once we fix $k$, there are only finitely many $m$ that you can pick.



          Hence if a neighborhood of $x$ is small enough, we can exclude those numbers of the form of $frac{m}{k+1}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:49










          • $begingroup$
            First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Siong Thye Goh
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:19














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          $x$ is irrational and also once we fix $k$, there are only finitely many $m$ that you can pick.



          Hence if a neighborhood of $x$ is small enough, we can exclude those numbers of the form of $frac{m}{k+1}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          $x$ is irrational and also once we fix $k$, there are only finitely many $m$ that you can pick.



          Hence if a neighborhood of $x$ is small enough, we can exclude those numbers of the form of $frac{m}{k+1}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 16 '18 at 2:09









          Siong Thye GohSiong Thye Goh

          101k1466118




          101k1466118












          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:49










          • $begingroup$
            First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Siong Thye Goh
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:19


















          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:49










          • $begingroup$
            First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
            $endgroup$
            – Siong Thye Goh
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:19
















          $begingroup$
          Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
          $endgroup$
          – Frank
          Dec 16 '18 at 18:49




          $begingroup$
          Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
          $endgroup$
          – Frank
          Dec 16 '18 at 18:49












          $begingroup$
          First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
          $endgroup$
          – Siong Thye Goh
          Dec 17 '18 at 1:19




          $begingroup$
          First, I think there is a typo, I think $delta = min{ delta+1, delta_2, ldots, delta_{N-1} }$. $delta_i$ is defined to be small enough such that there is no number of the form of $frac{m}{i+1}$ in the corresponding neighborhood. By taking the minimum of them, we make sure that any rational number inside the neighborhood, has a denominator that is bigger than $N+1$. that is $f(y)$ is either $0$ or being map to $frac1m$ where $m ge N+1$.
          $endgroup$
          – Siong Thye Goh
          Dec 17 '18 at 1:19











          0












          $begingroup$

          We know that $x$ is between two numbers divided by $k+1$, meaning $frac {m_1}{k+1}leq xleq frac {m_2}{k+1}$ for some $m_1,m_2leq k+1$, then if we take $$delta_kleq min (|x-frac {m_1}{k+1}|,|x-frac {m_2}{k+1}|)$$ we get the required the in a $delta_k$ neighbourhood of $x$, there are no points of the mentioned form.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
            $endgroup$
            – NL1992
            Dec 19 '18 at 16:15


















          0












          $begingroup$

          We know that $x$ is between two numbers divided by $k+1$, meaning $frac {m_1}{k+1}leq xleq frac {m_2}{k+1}$ for some $m_1,m_2leq k+1$, then if we take $$delta_kleq min (|x-frac {m_1}{k+1}|,|x-frac {m_2}{k+1}|)$$ we get the required the in a $delta_k$ neighbourhood of $x$, there are no points of the mentioned form.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
            $endgroup$
            – NL1992
            Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
















          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          We know that $x$ is between two numbers divided by $k+1$, meaning $frac {m_1}{k+1}leq xleq frac {m_2}{k+1}$ for some $m_1,m_2leq k+1$, then if we take $$delta_kleq min (|x-frac {m_1}{k+1}|,|x-frac {m_2}{k+1}|)$$ we get the required the in a $delta_k$ neighbourhood of $x$, there are no points of the mentioned form.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          We know that $x$ is between two numbers divided by $k+1$, meaning $frac {m_1}{k+1}leq xleq frac {m_2}{k+1}$ for some $m_1,m_2leq k+1$, then if we take $$delta_kleq min (|x-frac {m_1}{k+1}|,|x-frac {m_2}{k+1}|)$$ we get the required the in a $delta_k$ neighbourhood of $x$, there are no points of the mentioned form.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 16 '18 at 2:12









          NL1992NL1992

          7311




          7311












          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
            $endgroup$
            – NL1992
            Dec 19 '18 at 16:15




















          • $begingroup$
            Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
            $endgroup$
            – Frank
            Dec 16 '18 at 18:50






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
            $endgroup$
            – NL1992
            Dec 19 '18 at 16:15


















          $begingroup$
          Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
          $endgroup$
          – Frank
          Dec 16 '18 at 18:50




          $begingroup$
          Why do we choose $delta=min{delta_1,delta_2,...delta_{n-1}}$ How do we know, for example, there does not exist a $m_1$ such that $frac{m_1}{10}<frac{m_2}{1000} forall m_2$? If such an $m_1$ exists, then when we choose $y in {x-delta_k,x+delta_k} rightarrow frac{1}{n}>epsilon$, so the function would not converge.
          $endgroup$
          – Frank
          Dec 16 '18 at 18:50




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
          $endgroup$
          – NL1992
          Dec 19 '18 at 16:15






          $begingroup$
          I'm afraid I haven't completely understood your question but I'll answer something and if that doesn't answer it, please explain what you meant. For any number $x$, we have the two closest numbers to it with denominator $k+1$, and if we take the distance between $x$ and the closer one of these two, we are guaranteed not to meet any number with denominator $k+1$ in our set region. If we take it to be the minimal distance of all such denominators (up to $k+1$), then it must be that any of the denominators up to $k+1$ will not be met in the set region.
          $endgroup$
          – NL1992
          Dec 19 '18 at 16:15




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3042156%2fneed-help-understanding-a-continuity-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

          Image
          up vote 4 down vote favorite 1 Some time ago, I set up skydrive for my wife on her mac. But now she wants to access the files online, I cannot remember what Microsoft account I setup and linked her skydive app to and nor can I see anything in the skydrive app settings to tell me either? How can I see the name of the Microsoft account the skydive app is currently linked to? I would like to know this for skydrive app for Mac and PC onedrive share | improve this question asked Feb 25 '13 at 4:52 Gary Barrett 260 2 5 12
          Read more

          When does type information flow backwards in C++?

          Image
          up vote 62 down vote favorite 19 I just watched Stephan T. Lavavej talk at CppCon 2018 on "Class Template Argument Deduction", where at some point he incidentally says: In C++ type information almost never flows backwards ... I had to say "almost" because there's one or two cases, possibly more but very few . Despite trying to figure out which cases he might be referring to, I couldn't come up with anything. Hence the question: In which cases the C++17 standard mandates that type information propagate backwards? c++ language-lawyer c++17 share | improve this question edited 7 hours ago scohe0
          Read more

          Grease: Live!

          Image
          A tradução deste artigo está abaixo da qualidade média aceitável. É possível que tenha sido feita por um tradutor automático ou por alguém que não conhece bem o português ou a língua original do texto. Caso queira colaborar com a Wikipédia, tente encontrar a página original e melhore este verbete conforme o guia de tradução. Grease: Live! Grease: Live!  (PRT/BRA)  Estados Unidos 2016 •   cor •   130 min. min   Direção Thomas Kail Alex Rudzinski Produção Marc Platt Adam Siegel Roteiro Allan Carr Robert Cary Warren Casey Jim Jacobs Jonathan Tolins Bronte Woodard Baseado em Grease (musical) Grease (filme) Elenco Julianne Hough Aaron Tveit Vanessa Hudgens Carlos Pena Jr. Keke Palmer Carly Rae Jepsen Kether Donohue Jordan Fisher David Del Rio Andrew Call Gênero Musical Música Tom Kitt Figurino William Ivey Long Companhia(s) produtora(s) Warner Bros. Studios Distribuição Fox Lançamento 31 de Janei
          Read more