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.

Further to Another simple/conceptual limit question where I was questioning David Brannan's assertion in his A First Course in Mathematical Analysis that $f(x)=\sqrt x,x\geq 0$ has no limit at $0$ (Example 2c if you type in page 184 in the box on http://www.scribd.com/doc/74564079/Mathematical-Analysis), I just noticed that in an earlier section he asserted that the same function is continuous on its domain i.e. including at $0$ (Example 3 if you type in page 148 in the box).

Does this not violate the well-known theorem (Thm 2 if you type in page 185 in the box) implying that if $f$ is continuous at $c$, then $f$ has a limit at $c$ ? Is David Brannan contradicting himself (by setting up his definition of limits badly)?

EDIT: Thanks, Wisefool. It turns out that there is no contradiction in Brannan's assertions (that the square root function is continuous at 0 yet has no limit at 0) after all, but only because of his peculiar definition of "limit" and his analogously peculiar statement of the theorem relating continuity at a point to the limit at that point.

share|improve this question
1  
I fail to see the problem. The function you mention is continuous on its domain and it does have a limit at x=0. –  Ittay Weiss Jan 23 '13 at 7:22
2  
@IttayWeiss. What I understood the problem here is, is that the author of the book claims that there is no limit for $\sqrt{x}$ in $0$, while in other place he claims that for a continuous function the limit exists in every point of its domain. –  Thomas E. Jan 23 '13 at 7:25
    
Yes, Thomas, that's exactly the issue- thanks. –  Ryan Jan 23 '13 at 7:32
1  
IMO this is exactly the kind of trouble you get into when you try to define functions like $\sqrt{x}$ over all of $\mathbb{R}$ and start talking about "defined" and "undefined" points, instead of making full use of topology and subspaces. –  user7530 Jan 23 '13 at 7:50
    
@user7530 It's simply David Brannan being clumsy in dumbing down the definition of limit (not letting the limit to exist at $c$ when $c$ is an end-point of $f$'s domain) to suit whatever purpose he has. But I agree that the trouble run into is the same. –  Ryan Jan 23 '13 at 8:46
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

It is a simple matter of terminology: in that example (or in that section/chapter/book) a limit is understood to be a two-sided limit. $f$ has limit $l$ in $x_0$ if:

  1. $f$ is defined in a (puntcured) neighborhood of $x_0$
  2. for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that if $|x-x_0|<\delta$ then $|f(x)-l|<\epsilon$.

In that example, it is the first condition which fails.

This isn't exactly standard and personally I would have said that the function had a limit for $x\to 0$, but I can see the book's point...

EDIT: moreover, Thm2 on page 185 speaks about a point $c$ contained in an open interval $I$ where the function is defined. There is no open interval of the real line containing $0$ where the function $\sqrt{x}$ is defined.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for pointing out that Thm 2 mandates that the point in question isn't an end-point. I had missed that. –  Ryan Jan 23 '13 at 7:34
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.