Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am not sure how this questions sounds but might it be possible to actually compute and not just prove the limit of any arbitrary function whose limit exists using $\epsilon-\delta$ notation?

$$\forall \epsilon >0, \exists \delta>0 :\forall x, |x-c|<\delta\implies|f(x)-L|<\epsilon $$

share|cite|improve this question
Hard to tell if something "might be possible," but I've never seen anything that would match this. – Thomas Andrews Dec 30 '12 at 13:12
I think you might have to work on your logic there, it seems like only constant functions $f(x) = L$ would statify it. I suggest something like $$\forall \epsilon >0, x, \exists \delta>0, L :|x-c|<\delta\implies|f(x)-L|<\epsilon$$ – Arthur Dec 30 '12 at 13:17
I don't get what @Arthur means by $\forall \epsilon >0,x $ or actually most of it... – 007resu Dec 30 '12 at 13:29
Yeah, I'm confused by @Arthur's point, too. Why does $L$ depend on $\epsilon$ here? – Thomas Andrews Dec 30 '12 at 13:36
@ThomasAndrews What I mean is that as it stands, for any $\epsilon$, $f$ is closer than $\epsilon$ from $L$, for all $x$. You should rather say that given an $\epsilon$ and an $x$, there exists a $\delta$ and an $L$ (with $\delta$ depending on both $\epsilon$ and $x$, and $L$ depending on just $x$). That is what I'm trying to convey. I'm not used to logic notation conventions, so I might've skipped a qualifier or two. – Arthur Dec 30 '12 at 17:30
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The nature of the $\epsilon-\delta$ definition is that it takes in a function $f(x)$ a limit point $a$, and a limit value $L$, and provides a definition for $\lim_{x\to a} f(x) = L$. Thus the nature of the beast is not one of calculation - it requires even a proof to show that if $\lim_{x\to a} f(x)=L_1$ and $\lim_{x\to a} f(x)=L_2$ then $L_1=L_2$, because the definition does not assert that only one limit can exist.

It is best to realize that the $\epsilon$ definition of limits was arrived at as a formalism of something that all mathematicians understood. They had been using limits and continuity for centuries before they came up with this definition. The definition just finally gave a strong form to validate a limit value.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.