Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Valentin's avatar

The epsilon-delta-criterion aims to formalize our intuitive understanding what it takes for (a part) of some function to be continuous, i.e, replacing the „idealized pencil“ by requiring that for some sufficiently small variation of the argument, the changes in value become arbitrarily small. As often is the case with formalisms, this gives raise to wild examples. For example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomae%27s_function is continuous almost everywhere, yet the points of discontinuity lie dense. One might reject the idea of continuity in a single point as nonsensical. Playing the devils advocate, one should only be allowed to assign this property to some section of the function graph (if my pencil just marks a point, then what is the point). I am not very literate in the history if analysis. Were there alternative proposals put forward that would judge Thomae‘s function differently?

Expand full comment
Josh Jordan's avatar

What do you think of the definition of continuity in terms of open balls? I find that version somewhat easier to think about than the epsilon-delta version. I learned of it in D. J. Bernstein’s 1997 essay “Calculus for Mathematicians”:

> Definition 2.1. Let 𝑓 be a function defined at 𝑐. Then 𝑓 is continuous at 𝑐 if, for any open ball 𝐹 around 𝑓(𝑐), there is an open ball 𝐵 around 𝑐 such that 𝑓(𝐵) ⊆ 𝐹.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts