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.

For $\lim_{x\to c} f(x)$ you can just plug in the $c$ into $f(x)$ to get $f(c)$ and determine the limit. Why bother with all those formulas that break down the expression into smaller parts? It just seems like extra work to get to the same $f(c)$ result, even if the properties are mathematically sound. For the quotient formula, it does not seem to prevent a division by zero, either. I'm missing something big here. When do they actually come in handy?

enter image description here

share|improve this question
3  
Your first statement is just false. That is not how you find limits. –  Chris Eagle Apr 30 '13 at 15:08
    
Per @Chris's comment: see this recent post:. Note also that there are conditions on when the properties are valid. –  amWhy Apr 30 '13 at 15:10
2  
To your first sentence: What's $\lim_{x\to 0} \frac {\sin x}{x}$ ? –  AakashM Apr 30 '13 at 15:33
1  
That you "can just plug in the $c$" is equivalent to $f$ being continuous at $c$ (or the definition of the latter in most calculus textbooks, if you wish). Not always true, of course. Take $f(x)=1$ for $x\neq 0$ and $f(0)=0$, for instance. Not even mentioning that $f$ needs not even be defined at $p$. –  1015 Apr 30 '13 at 15:41
    
@AakashM You would still be dividing by zero either way, right? The limit when using forula #4 in the OP would be 0/0 or undef. –  JackOfAll Apr 30 '13 at 18:27

3 Answers 3

I think the whole point is to make things easier to solve. Imagine trying to solve this in your head in one go, as in considering the whole function $$\lim_{x \to \infty}[ (1+ {1 \over x})^{x} + {2x^2+4x+7 \over 4x^2+19x +7} +4]$$ impoossible yeah?

but by those laws this is just

$$\lim_{x \to \infty}[ (1+ {1 \over x})^{x}] + \lim_{x \to \infty}[{2x^2+4x+7 \over 4x^2+19x +7}] +\lim_{x \to \infty}[4]$$

which is much easier to see what the answer will be.

Here the middle term looks as though if we use the quotient rule it won't make sense as: $$\lim_{x \to \infty}[{2x^2+4x+7 \over 4x^2+19x +7}]= {\lim_{x \to \infty}2x^2+4x+7 \over \lim_{x \to \infty} 4x^2+19x +7} = {\infty \over \infty}$$

Even though this $\textit{does}$ make sense if you have seen l'hopitals rule we can work out the limit without it as we can use the first representation $\lim_{x \to \infty}[{2x^2+4x+7 \over 4x^2+19x +7}]$ and divide top and bottom by $x^2$.

My point is that they let you muck about with limits to put them into something 'nicer'.

share|improve this answer

Plugging in $c$ into $f(x)$ to determine the limit $\lim_{x\rightarrow c}f(x)$ only works if $f$ is defined and continuous at $c$. From that point of view, the identities you listed say that if $f$ and $g$ are continous at a point $p$, then so is $f+g$, $f\cdot g$ and so on. This is not obvious, although it's not hard to prove either.

For the quotient formula, one of course needs to assume that $\lim_{x\rightarrow p} g(x) \neq 0$.

share|improve this answer

Let $f: \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ and let $a \in \mathbb{R}$, the equality

$$\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=f(a)$$

Is equivalent to saying that $f$ is continuous at $a$. In truth, you can expecte that a reasonable function behaves this way (that should be the natural behavior), so we separate functions with this behavior in their own class: the continuous functions. They have the property that if we move $a$ just a little bit, then we move $f(a)$ just a little bit (that's not mathematically precise, to make it precise you need the definition, but I'm just trying to show you what it means).

Now if you have a function like this one:

$$f(x)=\begin{cases}\phantom{-}x, & x>0, \\ \phantom{-}1, & x = 0 \\ -x, & x<0\end{cases}$$

Now, look that $\lim_{x\to 0}f(x) = 0$, however $f(0)=1$ which is not the limit. Look what the problem is: imagine you are approaching $0$ from the right, then function is going converging to zero. If you walk just a little bit closer to $0$, then $f(x)$ also get's just a little closer to zero. The problem is that when you get really close to zero, the function will simply jump to $1$, a little bit you walk on the direction of zero will not correspond anymore to walking a little bit in the direction of $0$. So, using the definition, there's some $\epsilon > 0$ such that for all $\delta >0$ is not true that rescriting $x$ to $(-\delta, \delta)$ will restrict $f(x)$ to $(-\epsilon, \epsilon)$.

So, continuous functions form a special class of functions due to this property of not "breaking" itself on the point. The properties on the other hand are useful when you have a function that you know the limit, and you want to calculate the limit of a function obtained by sum, multiplication, quotient and composition. For instance, if you know that the limit of $x$ is $a$ when $x$ goes to $a$, then it's direct from the properties that the limit of $x^2$ when $x$ goes to $a$ is $a^2$ because $x^2 = x x$, not that you didn't need to use the definition once again to show that because you have already shown it proving the properties in the general case.

I hope this helps you out. Good luck.

share|improve this answer

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.