On 12/19/05, Bill Kuncicky wrote: > I've gotten the preliminary stuff out of the way (functions, graphs, > trig, exponentials and logs) and started on the differential calculus > part. The first section there is "limits," and I've hit a snag in my > thinking. Given a function f(x), such that f(x) = 1 for x .GE. 0, and > f{x} = 0 for x .LT. 0, is that a continuous function or a discontinuous > function? > > Since for every possible real number x there is a number f(x) which is > either zero or one, it seems to be that it would be continuous. The > book says it is discontinuous, though. Since they also say "A more > picturesque description of a continuous function is that it is a > function you can graph without lifting your pencil from the paper in the > region of interest," though, I can see where it might possibly be > discontinuous, but it is against intuition. It is discontinuous. One of the fundamental ideas of calculus is looking at the change in a function for some small value, call it epsilon, as epsilon is allowed to approach 0. So, look at your function f(): f(0) = 1 and f(0-epsilon) = 0 as epsilon approaches 0, f(0-epsilon) does not approach f(0). Also, again using the idea of epsilon, the derivative of the function f() at 0 is the limit of f(0) - f(0 - epsilon) / epsilon as epsilon approaches 0. This is not defined, therefore there is no derivative of f() at 0, and the function f() is discontinuous at 0. > I think that possibly they meant to write "f(x) = 1 for x .GT 0" > rather than using the .GE. No, if they had defined f() such that f(x) = 1 for x GT 0 and f(x) = 0 for x LT 0, then f() would not be defined at 0, and nothing could be said about it's derivative at 0 (and thus, nothing about the functions discontinuity at 0). Bill { who seems to be a much bigger geek than he rembered } -- Psst... Hey, you... Buddy... Want a kitten? straycatblues.petfinder.org -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist