Let $f,g:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ and $a,L \in \mathbb{R}$

If $\lim\limits_{x \to a} f(x)=L $ and $\lim\limits_{x \to L} g(x)=M$


$\lim\limits_{x \to a} g(f(x))=M$?

My proof:

Since $\lim\limits_{x \to a} f(x)=L $,

Let $\epsilon>0$,there exists a $\delta_1>0$ s.t $|x-a|<\delta_1\Rightarrow |f(x)-L|<\epsilon$

And $\lim\limits_{x \to L} g(x)=M$,

Let $\epsilon>0$,there exists a $\delta_2>0$ s.t $|x-L|<\delta_2\Rightarrow |g(x)-L|<\epsilon$

Let $\delta:=min\{\delta_1,\delta_2\}$

For all $\epsilon>0$ there exists a $\delta>0$ such that $|x-a|<\delta\Rightarrow|g(f(x))-M|<\epsilon$

Is my proof true or not?

  • $\begingroup$ You only know that $\lvert f(x) - L\rvert < \epsilon$, but to conclude $\lvert g(f(x)) - M\rvert < \epsilon$, you need $\lvert f(x) - L\rvert < \delta_2$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jun 8 '17 at 15:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Also note that some people use a definition of $\lim_{x\to a} f(x)$ that restricts $x$ to be different from $a$ (the implication is then $0 < \lvert x-a\rvert < \delta \implies \lvert f(x) - L\rvert < \epsilon$). With that definition of limit, it would not follow that $\lim_{x\to a} g(f(x)) = M$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jun 8 '17 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer, could you please give an example when it would fail? $\endgroup$ – md2perpe Jun 8 '17 at 21:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @md2perpe $f(x) = 0$ for all $x$, and $g(x) = 0$ for $x\neq 0$, $g(0) = 1$. Then $\lim_{x\to 0} f(x) = 0$ (for both definitions of the limit), and $\lim_{x\to 0} g(x) = 0$ for the definition of limit that excludes $0$ (the limit doesn't exist in the definition that includes $0$ as an allowed argument), and $\lim_{x\to 0} g(f(x)) = 1$. Replace $f$ with $h(x) = x\sin (1/x)$ [and $h(0) = 0$ of course] and $\lim_{x\to 0} g(h(x))$ doesn't exist. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jun 8 '17 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. If my analysis is correct, the limit of the composition would work if we also demanded that $0<|f(x)-a|<\epsilon$, but that would unfortunately make $f(x) = L$ for all $x$ not converge to $L.$ The question of what definition to use (including or excluding $0$ for $|x-a|$) is delicate; both obviously have their pros and cons. $\endgroup$ – md2perpe Jun 9 '17 at 5:06

It is incorrect. You should first choose a $\delta_1 >0$ s.t. $\lvert y - L \rvert < \delta_1 \Rightarrow \lvert g(y) - M \rvert < \epsilon$ for arbitrary $\epsilon > 0$. Then choose $\delta_2 > 0$ such that $\lvert x-a \rvert < \delta_2 \Rightarrow \lvert f(x) - L \rvert < \delta_1.$


First is $|g(x) - M|$, not $|g(x) - L|$ . You have to do this: Since $\lim_{y \to L}g(y)=M$ Let $ϵ>0$, there exists a $\rho>0$ s.t $|y−L|<\rho⇒|g(y)−M|<ϵ.$ Then since $\lim_{x \to a}f(x)=L$ You can take $\rho$ in the following statement. For $\rho>0,$ there exists a $δ>0$ s.t $|x−a|<δ⇒|f(x)−L|< \rho$. Since $|f(x) - L| < \rho$, then $|g(f(x)) - M| < ϵ$. Finally $|x-a|<δ ⇒ |g(f(x)) - M| < ϵ$. By definition: $\lim_{x→a} g(f(x))=M$. The problem in your demonstration is that you don't make sure $|f(x)−L| < δ_2$.


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.