Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there a difference between $(fg)(x)$ and $f(g(x))$? From my lecture slides

$\lim\limits_{x\to a} (f(x)+g(x)) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x) + \lim\limits_{x\to a} g(x)$

Then in the next slide, it shows

$\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(f(x)) = g(\lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x))$

It seem to contradict. Shouldn't it be

$\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(f(x)) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} (gf)(x) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} g(x) \times \lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x)$

Or does $(gf)(x)$ mean $g(x)\cdot f(x)$ not $g(f(x))$? I thought it meant the later.

share|improve this question
2  
Quick example: If $g(x)=x^3$ and $f(x)=x^2$, then $g(f(x))$ means $g(x^2)=(x^2)^3=x^2x^2x^2=x^6$, while $(gf)(x)=g(x)f(x)=x^3x^2=x^5$. The first is composition, not multiplication. –  Jonas Meyer Jan 29 '12 at 8:27
9  
Well, $g(f(x))$ is definitely composition, but whether $gf$ is multiplication or composition is a question of what convention has been agreed to by the parties to the exposition. –  Gerry Myerson Jan 29 '12 at 8:31
    
3  
@jiewmeng: I think you have come some way from posting scanned images of your work to typesetting it using TeX; keep it up. I just wanted to give a tip that would be hopefully useful: limits can be typeset as \lim_{x \to a} command (rather than \underset{x \to a} lim). This has multiple benefits: (1) This is simpler than what you wrote. (2) The lim symbol is now upright, and not in italics. (3) It automatically takes care of some spacing issues (I believe). –  Srivatsan Jan 29 '12 at 8:37
    
@Srivatsan, its written not scanned :) didn't know I can scan into LaTeX. Thanks for the tip –  Jiew Meng Jan 29 '12 at 8:42
show 1 more comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

As noted multiple times already, it is not clear whether $gf$ is intended to mean the pointwise multiplication $(gf)(x) = g(x) \cdot f(x)$, or the composition $(gf)(x) = g(f(x))$. However irrespective of which convention you follow, your conclusion $$\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(f(x)) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} (gf)(x) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} g(x) \times \lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x)$$ is plain wrong. This is because,

  • in the first step $\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(f(x)) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} (gf)(x) $, you are using $gf$ to mean the composition $g \circ f$; whereas

  • in the very next step $\lim\limits_{x\to a} (gf)(x) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} g(x) \times \lim\limits_{x\to a} f(x)$, you follow the opposite convention that $gf$ is the pointwise multiplication of $g$ and $f$.

Thus the real problem is using a single notation to mean two different things simultaneously. And the fix is simple enough: pick one of the above conventions and apply it consistently.


By the way, the correct identities you are looking for are:

  • Composition rule: If $g$ is continuous at $\lim \limits_{x \to a} f(x)$, then $\lim\limits_{x \to a} g(f(x)) = g \left( \lim \limits_{x \to a} f(x) \right)$.

  • Multiplication rule: $\lim\limits_{x \to a} \left( g(x) \cdot f(x) \right) = \lim \limits_{x \to a} g(x) \cdot \lim \limits_{x \to a} f(x)$.

Note that I purposely avoided using the $gf$ notation.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I have seen both conventions used in different contexts. Namely, in some texts, $gf$ stands for the function that maps $x$ to the product of $g(x)$ and $f(x)$, and in other texts $gf$ stands for the composition of $g$ and $f$, also known as $g\;{\scriptstyle \circ}\;f$.

Nonetheless, in my experience at least, the former usage is the more common of the two, especially in contexts where "pointwise" expressions like $f(x), g(x)$, $\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(f(x))$, etc. are being used (rather than those in which functions $f$, $g$, etc. are treated more abstractly, e.g. as morphisms in a category, without making reference their values at individual points). Therefore, in such a context a "pointwise" assertion like your proposed $\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(f(x)) = \lim\limits_{x\to a} (gf)(x)$, with its implicit use of the definition $gf \equiv g\;{\scriptstyle\circ}\;f$, would strike me as unconventional, and regrettably so, since it can so easily lead to confusion.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.