by mike » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:42 pm
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but here are a couple of comments. When defining elements, like make sure that what you're defining is really an element. What you have is , but is a set and so it can not be an element of What I think you meant was, let or equivalently, let and
Also, when I stated the theorem, I forced just to save time. If you let be any real number than you should consider 2 cases, if then |x| < a is satisfied vacuously.
But all in all these are probably overly technical details. You've had the right ideas all along and that's the most important part.
If you want to see the proof of the theorem I stated in my first response let me know.
All the Best!
M.
Give Love.