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

All the definitions I can find of a limit (with functions from R to R) define something like:

"as x approaches a, f(x) approaches L"

Where x is treated as a variable that is quantified over in the definition.

Whereas many of these books then go on to use expressions of the form:

"as g(x) approaches a, f(x) approaches L"

without generalizing the definition appropriately.

Two questions:

  1. what on earth makes this seem unproblematic to the authors? I'm guessing that the way I view things makes this use of notation seem more problematic than it is.

  2. What is the appropriate formal defintion of the limit of f(x) as g(x) approaches a, where f:S->R and S is a subset of R.

share|cite|improve this question
If $g$ is invertible in a neighborhood of $a$ then there are no problems here since $f$ is locally defined as a function of $g$. To be honest, though, I don't know any examples where it isn't already clear that $f$ can be written as a function of $g$; can you clarify? – Qiaochu Yuan Mar 15 '11 at 2:04
Are you saying "lim f(x) as g(x)->a" is short for "lim f(g(x)) as x -> g^-1(a)"? If so, why does g need to be invertible in a neighborhod, rather than just at the point? (I mean, the second limit may not exist, but shouldn't that just tell us, then, that the first limit does not exist either?) – Quine42 Mar 15 '11 at 5:51

The delta-epsilon definition of the limit generalizes in a straightforward way. Suppose that for each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta(\epsilon) > 0$ such that $|g(x)-a|<\delta(\epsilon) \implies |f(x)-L|<\epsilon$. Then we say that $f(x)$ approaches $L$ as $g(x)$ approaches $a$. Though it might be more appropriate to say "whenever $g(x)$ approaches $a$", since this could happen for more than one value of $x$. For instance, $\sin(x)$ approaches $0$ whenever $\cos(x)$ approaches $1$.

share|cite|improve this answer

I would interpret the statement that f(x) approaches L as g(x) approaches a to mean that for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists $\delta > 0$ such that for all x, $0 < |g(x) - a| < \delta$ implies $|f(x) - L| < \epsilon$.

Note that x need not be a real variable in order to apply this definition, though doubtless examples of that type come to mind. For example, sin(x) tends to 0 as cos(x) approaches 1, but the converse is not true.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm not that surprised that someone gave the same answer as me, 12 seconds later, but the fact that you chose the exact same example is a little spooky :). – mjqxxxx Mar 15 '11 at 2:32
@mjqxxx: You were faster and had better LaTex! – hardmath Mar 15 '11 at 2:46
Wait, why is the converse not true? – Quine42 Mar 15 '11 at 3:20
Oh, and what's the domain of the implicit universal quantifier over x--am I correct that, in the first case, we are saying 'for all x in the domain of f', and in the second case, 'for all x in the domains of both f and g'? (Otherwise, a may be a limit point of domain(g) where every nbhd still contains points not in domain(g), which would make the limit undefined, even though it may be approaching a perfectly sensible limit--yes?) – Quine42 Mar 15 '11 at 6:16
@Quine42: Nice nym. The converse is not true because as sin(x) approaches 0, you get values of cos(x) near both &plusmn;1. I do assume f,g have a common domain. If not, then I agree an author owes you more of an explanation about what is meant by this phrase. – hardmath Mar 15 '11 at 13:19

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.