-2

Question:

Prove using $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition that if $g$ continous in $a$ and that if $f$ continuous in $g(a)$ then $f\circ g$ is continuous in $a$
Rem: I know that there is a similar question here but this not the same question of mine as I am asking a proof by definition.

My Answer:

1- By assumption we know that because:
(i) $g$ is continuous in $a$ we have by definition that $\forall \epsilon_1>0, \exists \delta_1 > 0 : \forall |x-a|< \delta_1 \Rightarrow |g(x)-g(a)| \epsilon_1$
(ii) $f$ is continuous in $g(a)$ we have by definition that $\forall \epsilon_2>0, \exists \delta_2 > 0 : \forall |y-g(a)|< \delta_2 \Rightarrow |f(y)-f(g(a))| < \epsilon_2$
In order to prove that $f(g(x))$ is continuous by $\epsilon - \delta$ definition at $x=a$, we must show that $\forall \epsilon > 0 , \exists \delta > 0 : \forall |x-a| < \delta \Rightarrow |f(g(x))-f(g(a))| < \epsilon $

2- Given that $f(x)$ is continuous at $g(a)$ then according to (ii) $\forall \epsilon_2>0, \exists \delta_2 > 0 : \forall |y-g(a)|< \delta_2 \Rightarrow |f(y)-f(g(a))| < \epsilon_2$

3- Now because $g(x)$ is continuous at $a$ the definition in (i) is correct forall $\epsilon_1>0$ it is in particular true in the case for $\epsilon_1 = \delta_2 $ so in such a case we have that for $ \epsilon_1 = \delta_2 $ it exists at least one $\delta_2 > 0$ such that for $x$ verifying $|x-a| < \delta_1$ we have that $ |g(x)-g(a)| < \delta_2 = \epsilon_1$

4- Now let fixe one $\epsilon > 0 $
according to "3-" we can choose $\delta = \delta_1 > 0$ such that all the $x$ verifying $|x-a| < \delta_1 $ verify too that $|g(x)-g(a)| < \delta_2$
according to "2-" by the continuity of $f$ at $g(a)$ it implies that $|f(g(x))-f(g(a))|<\epsilon$

And this finish my prove because it is valable for any fixed $\epsilon > 0 $

Q.E.D.

Is it correct? especially part -3 and -4.

Arturo Magidin
  • 417,286
OffHakhol
  • 780
  • What does prove by definition mean? – masiewpao Mar 27 '24 at 14:16
  • @masiewpao thank for your time. You re right I ve edited my question to be more precise. The meaning is by $\epsilon - \delta$ definition. Is it more clear now? – OffHakhol Mar 27 '24 at 14:20
  • And what exactly is the question? – stange Mar 27 '24 at 14:21
  • @stange is my answer correct? – OffHakhol Mar 27 '24 at 14:21
  • 2
    The solution-verification tag shouldn't be used for questions like "Is my proof correct?". Instead, you should say why you think that your proof might be incorrect. – stange Mar 27 '24 at 14:23
  • @stange First it is not the tag i used the tag i used is proof verification tag that automatically convert to solution verification and proof verification is a valid tag for my question. Scond if you want more precision is my step 3 and 4 correct as they are the heart of my proof. – OffHakhol Mar 27 '24 at 14:26
  • Why some people want to close my question???? I ve spent time writing it – OffHakhol Mar 27 '24 at 16:02
  • Anyone to help? – OffHakhol Mar 27 '24 at 16:04
  • The tag solution-verification is still wrongly placed. You still haven't said why you think your proof might have flaws. – stange Mar 27 '24 at 16:31
  • 1
    https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/527855/real-analysis-continuity-of-a-composition-function – user408858 Mar 27 '24 at 18:13
  • @stange I have all ready explain you that this is the website that automatically replace the tag "proof verification" with the tag "tag solution-verification". Have you any constructive useful comment to write or it just amuses you to play the picky policeman instead of helping a student and down vote undergraduate question? If you do not want to help, it is your right but you can just skip the question instead of wanting to be right absolutely. Now go flag my comment as it seems that you like this kind of interaction. – OffHakhol Mar 27 '24 at 19:09

1 Answers1

0

My answer is correct. A similar proove can be found here:
Real Analysis: Continuity of a Composition Function
(Did not know that this answer was posted)

OffHakhol
  • 780