Limits and Continuity -- Diagnostic Tests
Limits and Continuity — Diagnostic Tests
Section titled “Limits and Continuity — Diagnostic Tests”Unit Tests
Section titled “Unit Tests”Tests edge cases, boundary conditions, and common misconceptions for limits and continuity.
UT-1: Epsilon-Delta Proof with a Non-Polynomial Function
Section titled “UT-1: Epsilon-Delta Proof with a Non-Polynomial Function”Question:
Prove using an epsilon-delta argument that .
A student writes the following “proof”:
For any Choose . Then . If Then .
Identify the logical gap in this proof and provide a correct epsilon-delta proof.
Solution:
The student”s proof implicitly assumes without justification. This must be shown by first restricting to ensure is close enough to for this bound to hold.
Correct proof:
Let . We need .
First, restrict so that Meaning . On this interval:
Therefore when .
Now choose . If Then:
The key misconception: students often pick as a simple function of without first bounding the non-linear factor. The two-step process (restrict to bound the non-linear part, then relate to ) is essential.
UT-2: L’Hopital’s Rule Applied to a Non-Indeterminate Form
Section titled “UT-2: L’Hopital’s Rule Applied to a Non-Indeterminate Form”Question:
A student attempts to evaluate by applying L’Hopital’s rule:
(a) Explain why this application of L’Hopital’s rule is invalid. (b) Evaluate the limit correctly using two different valid methods. (c) Explain why the student’s answer happens to be correct despite the invalid reasoning.
Solution:
(a) L’Hopital’s rule requires the limit to be of the indeterminate form or . Here:
\lim_{x \to 0}(x + \sin x) = 0 + 0 = 0 \quad \text{and \quad \lim_{x \to 0} x = 0
So the limit IS — L’Hopital’s rule is actually valid here. However, the student did not verify the indeterminate form before applying it. Let us reconsider: the student’s error is failing to check the conditions. In this case, the conditions happen to be met, so the answer is correct by coincidence.
Revised question interpretation: Suppose instead the student tries to evaluate using L’Hopital’s rule and writes:
This IS valid ( form). Now consider . A student applies L’Hopital’s:
This limit does not exist (oscillates between 0 and 2). The student concludes the original limit DNE.
(b) Correct evaluation of :
Method 1 (Algebraic):
Since We have as . Therefore:
Method 2 (Squeeze theorem): And both bounds So .
(c) The original limit : L’Hopital gives the correct answer because the conditions ARE satisfied. The misconception to target is applying L’Hopital when the limit of the ratio of derivatives does not exist, which does NOT imply the original limit DNE.
UT-3: Classifying Discontinuities and Continuity Conditions
Section titled “UT-3: Classifying Discontinuities and Continuity Conditions”Question:
Let be defined by:
f(x) = \begin{cases} \dfrac{x^2 - 4x + 3}{x^2 - 1} & \text{if x \neq 1, -1 \\ 1 & \text{if x = 1 \end{cases}
(a) Find . (b) Is continuous at ? State all three conditions for continuity at a point and verify each. (c) Classify the discontinuity at if one exists. (d) Classify the discontinuity at and explain why it is a different type.
Solution:
(a) Factor the numerator and denominator:
\frac{x^2 - 4x + 3}{x^2 - 1} = \frac{(x-1)(x-3)}{(x-1)(x+1)} = \frac{x-3}{x+1} \quad \text{for x \neq 1
(b) The three conditions for continuity at :
- is defined: . (Yes)
- exists: . (Yes)
- : . (No)
is NOT continuous at because condition 3 fails.
(c) Since the limit exists but does not equal the function value, this is a removable discontinuity. We could make continuous by redefining .
(d) At :
As : . As : .
The one-sided limits are both infinite but with opposite signs, so this is an infinite discontinuity (the limit DNE). This differs from because the limit itself does not exist at Whereas at the limit exists but does not match the function value.
Integration Tests
Section titled “Integration Tests”Tests synthesis of limits and continuity with other topics.
IT-1: Intermediate Value Theorem with Trigonometric Functions (with Derivatives)
Section titled “IT-1: Intermediate Value Theorem with Trigonometric Functions (with Derivatives)”Question:
Let . Prove that has at least one solution in the interval . Then determine whether the solution is unique using Rolle’s theorem applied to .
Solution:
Existence (IVT): is continuous everywhere as a sum of continuous functions.
Since and is continuous on By the IVT there exists such that .
Uniqueness (Rolle’s theorem via monotonicity):
We need to show for all . Note that So:
For : when I.e., .
For : . Since for (and ), we have Which is negative. A finer argument is needed.
A cleaner argument: . Since and We have Which does not prove positivity.
Let us check directly: g'(0) = 2$$g'(1) = 3 + 2 - 0 = 5$$g'(0.5) = 0.75 + 2 - \pi \approx 2.75 - 3.14 = -0.39.
Since changes sign, is not strictly increasing on all of So Rolle’s theorem alone cannot guarantee uniqueness on this interval. The IVT guarantees at least one root, but uniqueness cannot be established without a more refined analysis. This is the key insight: the IVT guarantees existence, but uniqueness requires additional structure.
IT-2: Limits Defining Derivatives at Non-Smooth Points (with Derivatives)
Section titled “IT-2: Limits Defining Derivatives at Non-Smooth Points (with Derivatives)”Question:
Let . Determine whether is differentiable at and by evaluating the appropriate limits. For each point where is not differentiable, classify the discontinuity of .
Solution:
f(x) = |x^2 - 4| = \begin{cases} x^2 - 4 & \text{if |x| \geq 2 \\ 4 - x^2 & \text{if |x| \lt 2 \end{cases}
At :
Left-hand derivative:
Right-hand derivative:
Since , is not differentiable at .
At :
Left-hand derivative:
Right-hand derivative:
Since , is not differentiable at either.
is continuous at both points ( and the limits equal the function value), confirming that continuity does not imply differentiability. The discontinuity of at is a jump discontinuity (finite jump from to ).
IT-3: Limit at Infinity with Parametric Complexity (with Integrals)
Section titled “IT-3: Limit at Infinity with Parametric Complexity (with Integrals)”Question:
Let .
(a) Prove that converges as by showing the improper integral converges. (b) Find .
Solution:
(a) For : .
Since (Gaussian integral), by the comparison test for improper integrals:
Therefore converges to some finite limit as .
(b) Let . Since We have . A more interesting limit is obtained by considering the tail: let And evaluate .
For large The dominant contribution comes from near . Substitute :
So as .
More rigorously: . Since as :
Therefore .
Summary
Section titled “Summary”The key principles covered in this topic are linked in the sub-pages above. Focus on understanding the definitions, applying the formulas or frameworks, and evaluating strengths and limitations of each approach.
Worked Examples
Section titled “Worked Examples”Worked examples demonstrating the application of key concepts are covered in the detailed sub-pages linked above.
Common Pitfalls
Section titled “Common Pitfalls”- Confusing terminology or concepts that appear similar but have distinct meanings.
- Overlooking key assumptions or boundary conditions that limit applicability.