13

Off hand, the uses of "squeezing" that I can think of are:

  • showing that $\lim_{x\to0}\dfrac{\sin x}x = 1$, which is then used in finding derivatives (PS: I've just remembered this item showing $\tan'=\sec^2$ by squeezing, without first differentiating any other trigonometric functions nor finding any limits besides the one in the definition of differentiation. I'm inclined to consider that another part of the same item on the list rather than a separate item, but I'm glad I also know this argument.);
  • exercises like finding the limit of the above when $x\to0$ is changed to $x\to\infty$, or ascertaining the convergence or divergence of a series by doing something involving finding limits of that sort, etc.; where all of this is not subsequently used to derive other results;
  • showing that there are functions that are differentiable everywhere but whose derivatives have discontinuities;
  • Various things in probability, possibly the most prominent of which is the proof of the weak law of large numbers. I'm adding this bullet point after writing the "PS:" below.
  • an argument that I wrote. Here are some specifics: Let $$ N = \text{number of persons whose income strictly exceeds }x; $$ $$ M = \text{total income of all whose income strictly exceeds }x. $$ Doing a continuous approximation to discrete variables, we pretend these vary continuously as functions of $x$. Although they may be non-one-to-one functions of $x$, they are easily seen to be one-to-one functions of each other. I demonstrated this proposition:

    Lemma: Except when $x$ is within a closed interval on which $M$ and $N$ are constant as functions of $x$, we have $\dfrac{dM}{dN}=x$.

    This is readily shown by squeezing: If $\Delta x>0$ then $x<\dfrac{\Delta M}{\Delta N}\le x+\Delta x$ and if $\Delta x<0$ then $x+\Delta x<\dfrac{\Delta M}{\Delta N} \le x$.

Quite possibly there are other uses that I know of very well but that don't come to mind. If you were to say to me "How do you prove $P$?" I might instantaneously know that it's by squeezing, but if I ask myself "What things are done by squeezing?", perhaps most of them don't come to mind.

So my question is: How shall we extend this bulleted list of applications of squeezing, listing items in order of their importance in the work of the generic working mathematician, including, but not limited to, uses in research, scholarship, pedagogy, and applications of mathematics to other fields?

PS: I'd forgotten this item, which might be what made me think of asking this question in the first place: Independent, random variables with equal distribution satisfy: $\lim_{n \to \infty}\mathbb{P}\left(X_{n+1} > \sum_{i = 1}^{n}X_i\right) = 0$

  • If $\nu(A)$ is the size of a subset $A$ of the population, and $\mu(A)$ is the total income of that subset of the population, and (capital) $X$ is the income of a randomly chosen person (the probability distribution being $\nu(A)/\nu(\Omega)$, where $\Omega$ is the whole population), then we have a Radon--Nikodym derivative $d\mu/d\nu=X$, and this time there's no exception like the one in the Lemma in my posted question. The parallels between this and the lemma are striking, but whether anything substantial can be said about that beyond noticing them, I haven't thought about yet. – Michael Hardy May 21 '14 at 23:25
  • (I should say the probability distribution is $A\mapsto\nu(A)/\nu(\Omega)$.) ${}\qquad{}$ – Michael Hardy May 21 '14 at 23:37
  • May I ask why squeezing is so important that you brought it up? I'd be very interested to understand the motivation. Also, a formal definition of squeezing may be very illuminating. – Tunococ May 23 '14 at 23:47
  • 1
    Would you consider the argument "For all $\epsilon >0$, $|A-B| < \epsilon$, therefore $A=B$" to be a squeezing argument? I intuitively think of the possible distance between $A$ and $B$ being 'squeezed down' to zero. –  May 23 '14 at 23:53
  • 1
    I just remembered this argument, using squeezing to show that $(d/dx)\tan x=\sec^2 x$ without first differentiating any other trigonometric functions. In a sense, that's not so different from the example of $\sin'=\cos$ to be a separate item on this list, but it's fun to know. – Michael Hardy May 23 '14 at 23:53
  • @Strants : My immediate reaction is that that would count as squeezing, and maybe there's a lot of stuff in geometry like that. The area of a circle, maybe? – Michael Hardy May 23 '14 at 23:55
  • The area of a circle being "trapped" between inscribed and circumscribed polygons seems to be one of the oldest cases of a squeeze type result. (Just my opinion...) – coffeemath May 24 '14 at 00:08
  • A related use of squeeze for convex sets in a ball: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/98237/21467 –  May 24 '14 at 00:09
  • Would you count direct proofs that $\sup_x f(x) = A$ as proofs by squeezing? (I mean proofs that show $(\forall x: f(x)\le A)$ and $(\forall B<A: \exists x: B<f(x))$.) –  May 24 '14 at 00:17
  • 2
    It seems odd to put a bounty on a question that is looking for examples, and thus there isn't really any "right" answer. I just implicitly used the squeeze lemma in this answer http://math.stackexchange.com/a/807768/7933, although one side of the squeeze is constant, so might be less interesting. – Thomas Andrews May 24 '14 at 22:39
  • @ThomasAndrews : It is possible that some user here has, or can quickly develop, a list of examples that is essentially complete, where "complete" would mean that if you've included a proof that $(\sin x)/x\to1$ as $x\to0$ then that counts as also including such things as the proof that $\tan'=\sec^2$ mentioned above (but does not include things like the Pareto example I mentioned, etc. – Michael Hardy May 25 '14 at 05:07

3 Answers3

1

Here's one tiny minor example:

If car goes sixty miles in two hours, its average speed during that time is $60/2=30$ miles per hour. But what is its speed at an instant, when it goes $0$ miles in $0$ hours? Conventionally one speaks of a limit of a difference quotient, but here is a definition by squeezing:

If car A overtakes car B at a particular instant and car B has constant speed (so that its speed at that instant is unproblematic), then car A may not be going fast than car B at that instant because car A may have been slowing down while approaching B, then exactly matching speeds at that instant, then speeding up. But car A's speed at that instant was not slower than that of car B, the definition of whose speed at that instant is unproblematic. If we can thus squeeze car A's speed between those of all cars at constant speeds whose speed is not greater than that of car A, and all such whose speed is not less than that of car A, then we define the instantaneous speed of car A.

This is the definition of "derivative" used in the book titled Calculus Unlimited. (Books of that sort must fail in our present pedagogical culture because "we" (I refuse to take that offensive word literally here) deliberately push into taking calculus those students whom we know to be unable to properly learn calculus, let alone appreciate things like this.)

1

Any instance of the limit at some point of a sine or cosine function multiplied by a function that approaches zero at that point can be shown to be zero by squeezing. For example, $$\lim_{x \rightarrow0}x\cos x=0$$ because $$-x\leq x\cos x\leq x$$ and $$\lim_{x\rightarrow0}-x=\lim_{x\rightarrow0}x=0.$$ In addition, limits at plus or minus infinity can be calculated this way. As an example, $$\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}e^x\sin x=0.$$ It is bounded by the functions $e^x$ and $-e^x$, both of which approach $0$ as $x\rightarrow-\infty$.

Edit: This can be generalized to the case of any bounded function, not just the sine or cosine functions. For instance, $$\lim_{x\rightarrow0}\frac{x}{1+x^2}=0.$$ The bounded function in this instance is $f(x)=\frac{1}{1+x^2}$ and the function that approaches zero is $g(x)=x$.

Edit 2: All of this is, in fact, useless, unless one or both of the functions is discontinuous.

  • I'm not sure this is an instance of squeezing. It's a comparison test of sorts. But squeezing means finding a limit by showing that a function (possibly a sequence) whose limit is to be found is squeezed between two things that both approach the same limit. – Michael Hardy May 29 '14 at 18:02
  • Sorry about that. My answer has since been repurposed. – Aidan F. Pierce May 29 '14 at 20:33
  • Your first example doesn't seem serious unless one doesn't already know that $\sin x\to0$ as $x\to0$, and if one didn't know that, then one should probably be working on that instead. But in my question I didn't have in mind exercises so much as uses for the purpose of doing something other than just as an exercise. – Michael Hardy May 29 '14 at 20:49
  • @MichaelHardy, it has now been changed to cosine. – Aidan F. Pierce May 30 '14 at 14:06
  • The problem is, this is included within my second bullet point above. – Michael Hardy May 30 '14 at 20:42
  • @MichaelHardy, I already read the second bullet point, and I did not ascertain that this answer and it overlapped in content. Please try to be more clear in the future. – Aidan F. Pierce May 31 '14 at 13:32
1

Here is an non-trivial application of squeezing which could (theoretically) be shown to first-semester calculus students, in the sense that it uses a bare minimum of machinery.

It is well-known that if $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function that satisfies the exponential law $f(x+y) = f(x)f(y)$, then $f$ is in fact infinitely differentiable and satisfies $f'(x) = f'(0)f(x)$. [In fact, one can weaken the hypothesis, replacing continuity of $f$ by measurability or even local measurability, but let's keep this more at a calculus level.] The "hard part" is to show that $f'(0)$ exists; once we have that, it's an easy calculation. But how do we show the derivative exists?

One famous proof goes like this: suppose we are in the nontrivial case where $f$ is not identically zero and therefore is everywhere positive. Then $\int_0^a f(t) dt$ is nonzero for some $a$ (the Riemann integral exists since $f$ is assumed continuous); let $C$ denote this quantity. Then

$$Cf(x) = \int_0^a f(x)f(t)dt = \int_0^a f(x+t)dt = \int_x^{x+a} f(t)dt$$

where the right hand side is differentiable by the fundamental theorem of calculus.

That's nice, but it does presuppose a certain amount of integration theory, i.e., machinery that we won't presume our first-semester students know. Similarly, we won't presume the students know the mean value theorem or the intermediate value theorem (or certainly not how to prove them!). All I would like to presume of our (ideal) students is that they know a set of reals with an upper/lower bound has a lub/glb.

So, here is another method. First show that $f$ is a convex function, i.e., that for $x, y$ and $0 \leq t \leq 1$ we have $f(tx + (1-t)y) \leq tf(x) + (1-t)f(y)$. Sketch of proof: show it holds at $t = 1/2$ by invoking $a b \leq \frac{a^2 + b^2}{2}$ where $a = f(x/2)$ and $b = f(y/2)$. Iterate this to prove the inequality for all dyadic rationals $t \in [0, 1]$. Then extend to all $t \in [0, 1]$ by invoking continuity of $f$.

It follows from convexity of $f$ that slopes of secant lines $\frac{f(t) - f(0)}{t}$ are increasing as a function of nonzero $t$. Thus, the slopes for positive $t$ have a lower bound given by $\frac{f(s)-f(0)}{s}$ for any $s < 0$, hence they have a greatest lower bound; this inf is the right-hand derivative

$$R_0 = \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{f(t)-f(0)}{t}$$

since these secants decrease as $t$ decreases to $0$. By similar reasoning, the left-hand derivative

$$L_0 = \lim_{t \to 0^-} \frac{f(t)-f(0)}{t}$$

exists, and we have $L_0 \leq R_0$. All we need to do is prove $L_0 = R_0$, or that $c := R_0/L_0 = 1$ (we know $1 \leq c$).

Here is where we apply a squeezing argument. Define

$$L_a := \lim_{h \to 0^-} \frac{f(a+h)-f(a)}{h}; \qquad R_a := \lim_{h\to 0^+} \frac{f(a+h)-f(a)}{h}.$$

One easily verifies that $R_a = f(a)R_0$ and $L_a = f(a)L_0$. Hence $R_a/L_a = c$ for any $a$. Also observe by our earlier reasoning that whenever $a \lt b$, we have

$$R_a \lt \frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a} \lt L_b$$

so that $L_b/R_a \gt 1$. Telescoping, we have for every $n$ that

$$\array{ \frac{L_1}{L_0} & = & (\frac{R_0}{L_0}\frac{L_{1/n}}{R_0})\cdot (\frac{R_{1/n}}{L_{1/n}}\frac{L_{2/n}}{R_{1/n}}) \cdot \ldots \cdot (\frac{R_{(n-1)/n}}{L_{(n-1)/n}} \frac{L_1}{R_{(n-1)/n}}) \\ & \gt & \frac{R_0}{L_0} \frac{R_{1/n}}{L_{1/n}} \ldots \frac{R_{(n-1)/n}}{L_{(n-1)/n}} \\ & = & c^n }$$

so that $1 \leq c \lt (\frac{L_1}{L_0})^{1/n}$ for all $n \geq 1$. Thus $c = 1$ by a squeezing argument, and we are done.

user43208
  • 9,162
  • Possibly the OP will reject this as being another example of one of his bullet points, but I thought it was cute enough to record anyway. It does occur to me that squeezing arguments are commonplace in advanced calculus courses, to prove e.g. that continuous functions are Riemann integrable. – user43208 Jun 01 '14 at 15:17