need help understanding a continuity proof
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
edited Dec 16 '18 at 3:28
Gaby Alfonso
972317
972317
asked Dec 16 '18 at 2:04
FrankFrank
16210
16210
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$x$ 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 $frac{m}{k+1}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
$x$ 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 $frac{m}{k+1}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$x$ 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 $frac{m}{k+1}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$x$ 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 $frac{m}{k+1}$.
$endgroup$
$x$ 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 $frac{m}{k+1}$.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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