Sunday, September 8, 2019

calculus - Rigorous definition of a limit




Suppose that L is a real number and f is a real-valued function defined on some interval (b,). We say that limxf(x)=L if for every positive real number ϵ, there is a real number M such that if x>M then |f(x)L|<ϵ.





Is this statement correct, or should it be amended to imply that a limit can exist at L (i.e. it is possible for a limit to exist at L), but does not have to be the limit of the function? For example, we can prove from this definition that limx4x2=0, but can't one also prove that limx4x2=0.001, limx4x2=0.0001 and other false claims by application of this definition?


Answer



The statement is correct.



(Note also that we usually talk about a limit existing at a to refer to the point that the variable x is approaching, rather than what the values of the function are approaching; to refer to what the function is approaching, we talk about the limit being L, or equaling L).



In your example, you cannot prove that limx4x2=.0001: given any L>0, let ϵ=L2. Then for any N>0, pick x>max{N,8L}. Then
8L<x2, therefore 4x2<L2.

And therefore, we have that
|L4x2|=L4x2>LL2=ϵ.
We have therefore proven that if L>0, then:




For every N>0 there exists x>N such that |Lf(x)|>L2.




This proves that the limit definition cannot be satisfied, since the condition fails for at least one ϵ.




If L<0, pick ϵ=L2 and a similar computation shows that you can always find x greater than any given N that will show the property is not satisfied.


No comments:

Post a Comment

analysis - Injection, making bijection

I have injection f:AB and I want to get bijection. Can I just resting codomain to f(A)? I know that every function i...