5
$\begingroup$

For a general limit the $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of a limit (the formal definition of a limit) states that

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ a} f(x) = L \Leftrightarrow \forall \epsilon > 0 \ (\exists \ \delta > 0 \ : \ (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies |f(x)-L| < \epsilon))$$

However the $\epsilon -\delta$ definition of a limit changes for limits as $x \to +\infty$ and $x \to -\infty$, and it changes again for limits that evaluate to $+\infty$ and $-\infty$


1. Limit as $x \to +\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ +\infty} f(x) = L \Leftrightarrow \forall \ \epsilon>0\; (\exists \ \delta : (\;x>\delta\implies |f(x) - L|\leq\epsilon)) $$

2. Limit as $x \to -\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ -\infty} f(x) = L \Leftrightarrow \forall \ \epsilon>0\; (\exists \ \delta : (\;x<\delta\implies |f(x) - L|\leq\epsilon)) $$

3. Limit evaluating to +$\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ a} f(x) = +\infty \Leftrightarrow \forall M > 0 \ (\exists \ \delta > 0 \ : \ (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies f(x) >M)$$

4. Limit evaluating to -$\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ a} f(x) = -\infty \Leftrightarrow \forall N < 0 \ (\exists \ \delta > 0 \ : \ (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies f(x) < N)$$


But why is that so? I understand that if you use the normal $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of a limit in these cases, you get contradictions that pop up like $0 < |x-\infty| < \delta \implies \delta > \infty$, which you cannot do anything further with.

While some of these differences might be subtle, it just seems counter-intuitive to change a formal and general definition.

I know that the fundamental idea behind the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition remains the same throughout all of these examples (that no matter how small we want to make our "error distance" ($\epsilon$) we can always find a "distance to our limit point" ($\delta$) that satisfies the definition of a limit) , but to get to that fundamental idea, the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition has to be subtly modified (and I'm not referring to modifications in notation) for each of these examples.

Or is it just a case that the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition for the general limit I put at the very start of this post is not as general as I thought?


Furthermore, how does the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition of a limit change for these cases, (the formal definitions of these don't seem to be covered in any introductory Calculus textbook).

5. Limit as $x \to +\infty$ $= +\infty$

$$ \lim_{x \ \to \ +\infty} f(x) = +\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

6. Limit as $x \to -\infty$ $= -\infty$

$$ \lim_{x \ \to \ -\infty} f(x) = -\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

7. Limit as $x \to -\infty$ $= +\infty$

$$ \lim_{x \ \to \ -\infty} f(x) = +\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

8. Limit as $x \to +\infty$ $= -\infty$

$$ \lim_{x \ \to \ +\infty} f(x) = -\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ How can your get within $\epsilon$ of infinity? $\endgroup$ – John Douma Apr 20 '16 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnDouma I see what you are saying, in that case are the last 4 cases I outlined not provable by the $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of a limit? $\endgroup$ – Perturbative Apr 20 '16 at 21:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Think of what the definitions are saying. If I approach a value I get a value. If that value is infinity, which is not a value, we have to say that we get arbitrarily large. Using your number 1 as an example, instead of saying if $x$ is within $\delta$ of infinity we say that if $x>\delta$ then $f(x)$ is within $\epsilon$ of $L$. $\endgroup$ – John Douma Apr 20 '16 at 21:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The problem in that it is difficult to define infinity and infinitesimal. So, we come up with definitions that avoid these problematic concepts. Infinitesimal becomes $<\epsilon$ and infinite becomes > N. $\endgroup$ – Doug M Apr 20 '16 at 22:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's $\epsilon$-$\delta$, not $\epsilon - \delta$. Namely, it's a dash between $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, instead of a minus sign. $\endgroup$ – Zhanxiong Jul 9 '17 at 17:15
2
$\begingroup$

To understand this, you need to think of the intuition behind the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition. We want $\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L$ if we can make $f(x)$ as close to $L$ as we like by making $x$ sufficiently close to $a$. Worded differently, we might say that:

$\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L$ if given any neighborhood $U$ of $L$, there is a neighborhood $V$ of $a$ such that elements of $V$ are mapped by $f$ to elements of $U$ (except possibly $a$ itself).

In this context, a "neighborhood" of a point $p$ should be understood to mean "points sufficiently close to $p$". Let's make that precise by defining what we mean by "close". For $\epsilon>0$ (assumed, but not required, to be very small) define $$B(x,\epsilon):=\{y\,:\,|x-y|<\epsilon\},$$ the ball of radius $\epsilon$ about $x$. For our purposes, we say $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$ if $U=B(x,\epsilon)$ for some $\epsilon>0$. (The usual definition only requires that $U$ contains such a ball.) Assuming $\epsilon>0$ is very small, this agrees with our intuition of what closeness should mean. Now if we go back to our neighborhood "definition" of a limit, you should be able to think about it for a bit and convince yourself that it is equivalent to the usual definition.

How does this relate to the problem with infinity? Given that infinity is not a real number (and things like distance from infinity do not make sense), we must revise what it means to be "close" to infinity. So for $M>0$ (assumed this time to be very large) define $$B(+\infty,M):=\{y\,:\,y>M\},\quad B(-\infty,M):=\{y\,:\,y<-M\},$$ the neighborhoods of $\pm\infty$. Hopefully you can see why these make sense as definitions; a number should be close to infinity if it is very large (with the correct sign), so a neighborhood of infinity should contain all sufficiently large numbers.

Now we extend our neighborhood definition of limits to include the case where $a$ or $L$ can be $\pm\infty$. It is a similar exercise to before to verify now that the definition is still equivalent to the old one, only now we have in some sense unified somewhat.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ just out of curiosity, where exactly did you get this definition $B(x, \epsilon) := \{y : |x-y| \leq \epsilon\}$, is it covered in Principles of Mathematical Analysis by any chance? $\endgroup$ – Perturbative Sep 9 '16 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ This is a standard definition throughout analysis. $\endgroup$ – user370967 Jul 9 '17 at 16:06
2
$\begingroup$

We have to change the formal definition here because $\pm\infty$ are not members of $\mathbb{R}$.

One way to generalise this is to consider the set $ \mathbb{R}_\infty = \mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty\}$. Note here that we do not make a distinction between $\pm\infty$. We can define a Hausdorff topology on this set using the basis of open sets $$ \{U \subset \mathbb{R} : U \text{ is open}\} \cup \{B_\infty(\delta):\delta > 0\}$$ where we define the open ball about infinity as $B_\infty(\delta) = \{x \in \mathbb{R} : |x| > \delta\}$. This topological space is compact and called the one point compactification of $\mathbb{R}$. It is homeomorphic to a circle.

(If you're lost here because you haven't heard of topology before, just imagine wrapping the real line round a circle and gluing the ends together at a point which we call $\infty$. Then 'forget' what the original numbers were and treat all parts of the circle the same. In particular, limits work the same everywhere on this circle.)

You can prove that a function $ f : \mathbb{R}_\infty \to \mathbb{R}_\infty $ is continuous at a point $ a \in \mathbb{R} $ (using the standard definition for continuity in a Hausdorff space) if the restriction $f|_\mathbb{R}$ is continuous at $a$. Similarly you can prove that it is continuous at $a = \infty \in \mathbb{R}_\infty$ if the limits $\lim_{x\to+\infty} |f|_\mathbb{R}|$ and $\lim_{x\to-\infty} |f|_\mathbb{R}|$ exist (using your definitions for these limits, and the convention $\infty = |\pm\infty|$) and $$ \lim_{x\to+\infty} |f|_\mathbb{R}| = \lim_{x\to-\infty} |f|_\mathbb{R}| = f(\infty) .$$

It might please you to note (and prove) that, where it exists, $$ \lim_{x \to +\infty} f(x) = \lim_{x \to ^+0} f(1/x).$$ If you have a read about Möbius maps on $\mathbb{R}$, you will find that $x \mapsto 1/x$ is a Möbius map taking $0 \mapsto \infty$ and $\infty \mapsto 0$. This (algebraic) definition is inspired by the analysis here. The Möbius maps form a group under composition and are very important in several areas of mathematics (e.g. in the theory of Modular curves).


With regard to your definitions 5-8, you were very close with your previous guess. It is a useful exercise to practice writing down explicitly what you think you mean by phrases like "as $x \to \infty$".

When we talk about either $x$ or $f(x)$ tending to $\pm\infty$, we mean that it is 'getting really big' (in a positive or negative sense). We expressed 'getting really close' by using the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition you're happy with. In your definitions 1-4 you altered these to change one of the 'getting really close to' statements to a 'getting really big' statement.

To express $x \to +\infty$ in 1, you changed the relevant part of the statement to $(\exists \delta : x > \delta \Rightarrow \dots)$. To express $f(x) \to +\infty$ in 3, you changed the relevant part of the statement to $(\forall M > 0: (\exists \delta: \dots \Rightarrow f(x)>M))$.

Putting these characterisations together, we arrive at the definition for 5 $$\lim_{x\to+infty} f(x) = \infty \quad\Rightarrow\quad \forall M > 0 (\exists \delta: x > \delta \Rightarrow f(x) > M).$$

See if you can now do 6-8.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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