28 February 2011

A Limited Introduction To Continuity

I think you actually get introduced to limits in algebra II or pre-calculus, but I'm tagging this as a calculus post because that's where they stop being an obscure concept and start having meaning. Feel free to read this if you're only up to algebra, it should still make sense.

You won't understand this post if you don't already know algebra ideas, however. Sorry! We'll get there eventually and then you can come back to it.

So, what are limits?

The most basic explanation is that a limit is the behaviour of a function as it approaches a certain value. What does f(x) do as x approaches infinity or zero or 4?

Why is that important? Why do we need to know if f(x) is going to infinity or whatever? First of all, continuity. Secondly, the definition of derivatives goes back to limits, and FURTHERMORE, since differential equations model actual real-life scenarios, it can tell us what to expect the outcomes of those scenarios to be.

The last two are outside the scope of an introduction to limits, ESPECIALLY if I'm framing this at an algebra level, so let's talk about continuity.

"Dudes already know about continuity!!"

Whatever I'm explaining it anyway. Continuity basically means there are no holes in the graph of a function. If you put your pencil down at the far left side of the graph, you can get to the far right side of the graph without ever lifting it.

The mathematical definition of continuity at any point is:



This actually says a few different things:
1. The limit exists, which means:
2. The limit from the left and the limit from the right are equal to each other
3. The limit as x approaches a is equal to the value of the function at x = a

Let's do this with a simple function first to give you an example of what I'm talking about. Here's the graph of F(x) = 2x+1:



It should be easy enough to see that this graph is continuous. F(x) will exist for any possible x you might pick, anywhere from -∞ to +∞. So how does that fit in with our definition of continuity?

Let's try a limit with a at specific point. What does the function do as x approaches 0? In this case, we can just plug in 0 to see what happens:





The limit exists at that point, and it is equal to the function at that point, which means F(x) is continuous at x = 0. Pretty easy!

What happens when you pick a number you can't plug in, though? Like, say, INFINITY?



Infinity's not a number. It's an idea. You can't plug infinity into 2x+1 to see what you get. What you CAN do is look at the graph to figure out what it's doing as x gets infinitely larger. In this case, as x increases, F(x) is also increasing. It will keep going up and up and up on that cartesian plane FOREVER because there is nothing to stop it. Thus, the limit is also going to be infinity:



That should pretty much be self-evident. It doesn't MEAN a goddamn thing for this particular function, sadly, but it's an example of how to take limits to infinity.

Let's try it for a function that's NOT continuous for all values of x.




This graph has an asymptote through x = 1. Let's look at how that discontinuity works with the graph's limit.



We can't just plug in 1 here because HOLY SHIT DIVISION BY 0 so don't do that you'll wreck the universe or something. (spoilers: I'm going to blow your mind later by dividing by zero.)

What you have to do in this case is take the limit from both sides. If the limit from the left and the limit from the right are equal to each other, then the limit exists. If they're not equal, then the limit does not exist, which means you can write a big fat DNE on your assignment.

Remember that whole number line thing? Imagine 1 on a number line. Now imagine you're running at it from the positive direction: starting at the rightmost side of the number line and sprinting toward 1. We'd write that as:



How do you figure that out? Plug in a bunch of numbers that are greater than 1 but closer and closer to it. Tables are very helpful for this:



xF(x)
1.91.1111
1.0911.1111
1.009111.1111


As you can see, the closer we get to 1 from the right, the bigger F(x) is getting. You can keep plugging in values for x until you're satisfied, but I'm gonna say this limit is +∞ and call it a day.

Now we do the same thing for 1 from the left. Start running toward 1 from the negative direction and see what happens.





xF(x)
.009-10
.09-100
.9-1000


Looks like this one's going to -∞ the closer you get to 1. So it's positive infinity from the right, but negative infinity from the left, which means...



Whoops! Limit DNE!

Since the limit at 1 doesn't exist, because the limits at 1+ and 1- aren't equal, that means the function is discontinuous at x=1.

But there's two different ways to make a function discontinuous according to our definition. We've only proven the first way: if the limit doesn't exist. Let's take a look at the second way: if the limit as x approaches a is not the same as F(a).

We'll use a removable discontinuity for this one. That means you can rewrite it as a continuous function with algebraic manipulation.




This can be re-written as:





Since you can factor an x - 1 from the top and cancel it with the bottom, that means the function is continuous, right? Well, let's take a look:







So our limit is 2, right? Right! The limit exists and it is 2 as x goes to 1. In order for the function to be continuous at x = 1, however, the original function must also equal 2 at x = 1.



Whoooops division by zero! F(1) doesn't exist!

BUT WAIT! Why can't you just cancel it like you did before, Guindo?

That's actually a very good question, and it is a common error. Let's take a look at why that doesn't work for this particular value of x.



For any non-one value of x, it's true that will be 1. But there's a very important rule to remember when you try to substitute a value in there.



You still can't divide by zero. When you cancel a fraction like this, what you're really saying is that its value is 1 so continuing to write it would be frivolous. But is not 1, it's undefined. So our limit is 2, but F(1) DNE.



So the graph has a hole in it at x=1, and the function is discontinuous.

Gosh this limits post sure got long, didn't it? We've sufficiently covered continuity, at least; I can talk about calculating tricky limits and indeterminate forms next time.

Oh, wait, there is one trick that math books like to throw you about continuity: using piecewise functions to ask if something's continuous. This is actually really easy to tackle if you keep the definition of continuity in mind.

I'm going to use our last example for this one, since we already did the work of finding the limit, and give it a specific condition as a piecewise function:



If x is NOT 1, then the top line is what we graph. If x IS 1, then the bottom line is what we graph. In a case like this, what the writer of the problem is really asking you to do is take the limit as x approaches the value where the piecewise function changes, and then make sure the value of the function itself is equal to the limit at that point.

We've already done this, so we know that the limit as x approaches 1 is 2, and since the piecewise function says that F(1) = 2, the function is continuous at that point. Math books do this to try to trip you up, but if you have an understanding of continuity based on limits, it's just a cheap trick.

Next time: Indeterminant forms and fun ways to bend the universe around limits






* Graphs supplied by this fine website. Code...well, that's in the sidebar now, isn't it?
** Why can we cancel (x-1)/(x-1) for the limit but not when we plug it into the function? When you take a limit, you're only looking at it's behaviour as x GETS CLOSE TO a. You're not actually taking its value AT a. That means a limit as x approaches 1 will never have x EQUAL 1, so (x-1)/(x-1) will never equal 0/0.

21 February 2011

I'm Absolutely Positive About This

OH MAN YOU GUYS TODAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER LINE!!! I AM SO EXCITED.

What is the number line? It is a visual represesntation of all real numbers arranged in the form of a horizontal line. What is a real number? ONE THAT ISN'T IMAGINARY, OF COURSE.

That wasn't a joke. Imaginary numbers are a thing.

Anyway the number line looks something like this. It's basically a graph with only one axis, or a "one-dimensional graph" if you want to sound like a mathematically knowledgeable douchebag about it. (I will of course be calling it a one-dimensional graph.)



The right side goes all the way to positive infinity, and the left side goes all the way to negative infinity, as indicated by the arrows on either end, and zero sits there in the middle being way too fucking smug about the whole thing.

The cool thing about the number line is that it's a really handy visual for explaining concepts! Remember that post about how subtraction is a lie? The number line serves as a way to show that. I am probably way more excited than one man should ever be about a one-dimensional graph. I just do not understand why teachers glaze over this and show it once and then never bring it up again - IT IS SO USEFUL FOR ILLUSTRATING SO MANY IDEAS.

HOW TO GRAPH POINTS ON A NUMBER LINE: Start at 0, first off. You're starting out with nothing.



Then look at the point you're trying to graph. If it's positive, you move to the right (positive direction), and if it's negative, you move to the left (negative direction.)

This is 5 and -3:


Five steps in the positive direction


Three steps in the negative direction


This totally doesn't sound as cool as advertised, does it? That's just putting points on a line, what is there even to get excited about?

God, quit being such a killjoy. You jerk.

Look here's how addition works on a number line. Take 5+3. Let's plot that on the line. We start at 5 and then move 3 spaces in the positive direction:



Daaaang that was an unnecessarily convoluted way to show something you already know how to do! LET'S DO IT AGAIN! This time we'll subtract, 5 - 3 = 2. Start at 5 and then move 3 spaces in the negative direction:



Okay whatever, what is the SIGNIFICANCE of that? Well, when you add you move in the positive direction, and when you subtract you move in the negative direction. What happens when you add a positive number (right of zero) and a negative number (left of zero)? Let's check it out:


5 + (-3)


(-3) + 5


Oh shit, did I just prove that subtraction is addition of negatives and that it is TOTALLY commutative? I THINK I DID.

(But Guindo nobody was even questioning you about that--SHUT UP)

Now let's talk about something that most people think they understand but they actually don't because it was explained to them in a very simplistic, watered down way: absolute value. "Wait, I know how absolute value works!" you are thinking to yourself. "That makes things positive!"

And you would be WRONG.

If 3 - 5 is really 3 + (-5), and absolute value makes things positive, then wouldn't |3 + (-5)| become |3 + 5|, making |3 - 5| = 8 ? No. No, that is not correct at all. (This is not a wholly made-up example by the way, I have had college math students come to me thinking that this is how it worked because of the shitty "makes things positive" explanation their teachers gave them.)

What absolute value actually means is "distance from zero," which brings us back to the number line! First you perform whatever operation is inside the absolute value bars, in this case we're using 3 - 5:


3 - 5 = -2


Then, to figure out the absolute value of that, count how many spaces away from 0 your answer is:



3 - 5 = -2, which is 2 spaces away from 0, which means |3 - 5| = 2.

And now you understand what absolute values are and what your math teacher is actually asking you for when you see those goofy straight-bars in a problem! Absolute value isn't telling negative signs to take a hike, it's giving a distance.

This post was maybe still not as exciting as advertised so here is the absolute value of my cat's awesomeosity:



NEXT TIME: The behaviour of this blog as time approaches infinity.





* "Why all the purple in this post?" BECAUSE PURPLE IS AWESOME FUCK YOU

18 February 2011

In Which Guindo Is A Killjoy

Here's something you might've seen around the internet. A "proof" (and I use the term loosely) that shows how 2=1 using apparently sound math.

That is, it looks sound until you realize it's complete garbage.

Here's the proof in question:



WOW! AMAZING! A mathematical fallacy, surely the universe is torn asunder or at the very least flipped turn-ways.

No. Sorry. Here's the problem with this proof:



Since a=b, a-b=0, and you CAN'T DIVIDE BY (a-b) TO CANCEL IT BECAUSE IT'S ZERO AND YOU CAN'T DIVIDE BY ZERO.

QED.

Proof disproven. Stop showing me this as if it is a novelty; it's troll math.

Similar case of troll math that I found while looking up the first case:



This one seems sound and then takes a huge leap off the deep end. I actually had to whip out my calculator to figure out just what was wrong with this one because it looks sound, and the problem isn't where I was expecting it to be.



When you square something, it's going to be positive. When you take the square root, you're going to get two answers: a positive answer and a negative answer. This proof takes the negative answer for one and the positive answer for the other one and says they're equal. They're not. This should actually read -4+9/2 = 5-9/2, which is true. Unfortunately for this "proof," it means the rest of the problem isn't anything particularly mind-blowing. If you cancel everything out, you'll get 0=0.

Guys, if you're going to try to disprove math can you at least do it using real logic?

Oh wait. You can't. Because math is pure logic.

Q E fucking D.

14 February 2011

Not quite hitchless

No blog post today, unfortunately. My computer was in the shop for most of the past week, so I didn't have the time to work on anything. I'll try to make up for it with a mid-week post in the next few days. The promised number line post is postponed 'til next Monday because it still needs ~*images*~ and that's too much work for me to deal with right now to get a post up by tonight.

I will, however, share with you what happened when I went to pick up my computer from the shop.

As I was discussing things with the technician, a middle-aged woman walks in with a flatscreen monitor, talking on her cell phone about how she's "fi'n'a find out why this monitor don't work."

The tech asks her what the problem is. She replies, "It won't turn on."

"Where's the power cord?" he asks. "Did you bring that with you?"

"The power cord?"

"Yes, I can't turn it on if there's no power cord."

"What's that?"

The tech stops, staring at her.

"Can you show me?" she asks.

He points to the monitor, indicating the port for the power cord.

"What do you need that for?"

"You can't turn it on if there's no power."

"So I need a power cord or it won't work?"

"Yes."

"Is that why it won't turn on? I need a power cord?"

"Yes."

She proceeded to ask if he had any available in the shop for her to buy, and as he walked by me to get to the register desk, I heard him mutter under his breath, "God help me."

I do not envy people in the computer industry.

07 February 2011

I'm Not Making Another Fraction Pun

Fractions.

Again.

This time we're going to talk about operations on fractions. Let's start easy: multiplication. Multiplying fractions is the easiest, god damn. You multiply straight across, numerator to numerator and denominator to denominator.



THIS IS THE SIMPLEST THING YOU WILL EVER DO WITH FRACTIONS.

It's all downhill from there.

Sigh.

Look guys I don't want to keep talking about fractions. Lowest common denominators are such a pain in the ass, do you even know? Here is how we do it in calculus: "Oh, you have to add ? Whateverrrr just multiply the first one by and the second one by , it doesn't matter."

But for some reason, people in lower division math expect you to add them by doing more work by finding a lowest common denominator when that is really completely unnecessary.

You can tell your math teachers I said that. It means something because I am a math major on the internet.

So according to wikipedia (I stole their definition because I hate LCDs that much), "the lowest common denominator or least common denominator (abbreviated LCD) is the least common multiple of the denominators of a set of vulgar fractions. It is the smallest positive integer that is a multiple of the denominators." Vulgar fractions??? WIKI STOP CONFUSING ME. Also integers are whole numbers - hey that definition was simple!

What the fuck does that actually MEAN though? It means that if your denominators are 4 and 6 as in the above example, you should be finding the lowest number that fits in both 4 and 6's multiplication tables. 4×2 is 8, you can't get that out of 6, 4×3 is 12, and - hey! 6×2 is also 12! Suddenly you have a lowest common denominator: 12. So you multiply by , and by to get

This is really important and I cannot stress this enough: YOU NEED TO MULTIPLY THE NUMERATOR TOO. This ONLY works because any number over itself is equal to 1, and multiplying anything by 1 does not change your answer. If you forget and instead of multiplying you only multiply the denominator by 3, you will get AND YOUR WHOLE ANSWER WILL BE WRONG because

Are we clear? We're never going to change denominators without remembering the numerators too? Okay. Good.

Unlike multiplication, which goes straight across top to top and bottom to bottom, addition is different. You don't add denominators. That's why they need to be the same number in the first place. If you add of a pizza and of a pizza, you do not have of a pizza.

You need to convert those fractions to the same denominator, which in this case is easy because 2×2 = 4. becomes , and when you add them you get .

I'm going to cover one more thing here and that is inverses, which I mentioned briefly in the post about subtraction and division being LIES. Every integer (whole number, remember?) can be written in the form of a fraction, as I also mentioned there. 3 can also be written as . Keep that in mind, because it is important for explaining division and inverses.

An inverse is something that multiplies with its original to equal one. For example:



Thus you see that is the inverse of 3. Basically, with fractions, you flip the numerator and denominator and TA-DA you have the inverse of the original fraction.

Remember how I said that division was really multiplying by the inverse? Guess how you divide fractions!

WHOA HOLD UP, you mean you have to DIVIDE by FRACTIONS sometimes? Yes, dear blog-reader, you do. It happens with alarming frequency in the middle of integrals, as a matter of fact! So how do you do it? You multiply by the inverse you ignorant oaf! God, have you even been paying attention?!



And now it's a normal multiplication which, as stated in the beginning of this post, is the simplest thing you will ever do with fractions.

NEXT TIME: THE NUMBER LINE. It is way more interesting than fractions, you guys.





* Do I even really need to say this anymore? codecogs.com. In fact I'm just going to put this in the blog info and stop amending it to posts.
** If this post was insufficient (which, let's be honest, it probably was), please direct yourself here, where you will find a far more comprehensive explanation of how to find LCDs and shit.
*** Inverses are also called reciprocals when applied to fractions but I forgot to mention it because I hate fractions too much to remember that shit.