3
$\begingroup$

I'm still confused by the use of  $\Rightarrow$  in (ε,δ)-definition of limit.
Take for example the definition of $\underset{x\rightarrow x_{0}}{\lim}f\left(x\right)=l$ :

$$\forall\varepsilon>0,\;\exists\delta>0\quad\mathrm{such\:that\quad}\forall x\in\mathrm{dom}\,f,\;0<\left|x-x_{0}\right|<\delta\;\Rightarrow\;\left|f\left(x\right)-l\right|<\varepsilon$$

My questions are:

Why is $\left|f\left(x\right)-l\right|<\varepsilon$ not a sufficient condition for $0<\left|x-x_{0}\right|<\delta\;$?

Or, stated in another way, shouldn't $\left|f\left(x\right)-l\right|<\varepsilon\;\Rightarrow\;0<\left|x-x_{0}\right|<\delta\;$ also be true ? If $f\left(x\right)$ becomes arbitrarily close to $l$, doesn't $x$ becomes arbitrarily close to $x_0$?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Suppose for instance that $f $ is constant (with value $l $). $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 16 '17 at 19:08
6
$\begingroup$

Already given example of constant function should (in my opinion) be enough to shoot the whole idea down in a blazing glory, but parabola might be more convincing visually:

enter image description here

As we can see, $\lim_{x\to -2} x^2 = \lim_{x\to 2} x^2 = 4$, and when we are getting close to the limit $4$ on the $y$-axis, it could be that we are either close to $2$ or $-2$, but most definitely we can't get close to both at the same time.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So basically my definition does not work, except for injective functions. Am I right? $\endgroup$ – Davide La Vardera Dec 16 '17 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Davide La Vardera, actually, no. Restrict $x\mapsto x^2$ to positive reals and take the same limit. Then $-1 < x^2 -4 < 1 \iff \sqrt 3 - 2 < x-2 < \sqrt 5 - 2$, so such $\delta$ would exist for $\varepsilon = 1$. Notice that interval that is the preimage is not symmetric around $2$. $\endgroup$ – Ennar Dec 16 '17 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ If i restrict $x^2$ to positive reals, doesn't it become injective in the positive reals? $\endgroup$ – Davide La Vardera Dec 16 '17 at 20:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide La Vardera, of course it does, otherwise it wouldn't be counterexample to your claim. And now that I think about it, the mere condition in the definition that $0<|x-x_0|$ already breaks the whole thing. $\endgroup$ – Ennar Dec 16 '17 at 20:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide La Vardera, if it's not clear enough, $|f(x)-l|<\varepsilon \implies 0<|x-x_0|<\delta$ can be rephrased as $f^{-1}(l-\varepsilon,l+\varepsilon) = (x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\setminus \{x_0\}$ which definitely isn't true. $\endgroup$ – Ennar Dec 16 '17 at 20:11
6
$\begingroup$

Changing the definition in that way would mean that a constant function cannot have a limit, for example.

Or as a less trivial example, consider for example $\lim\limits_{x\to 1}\frac1x$. Intuitively this ought to be $1$, but with your addition to the definition the limit would not exist. Namely, if I choose $\varepsilon=2$ then you can't find any $\delta$ such that $|\frac1x-1|<2$ is only true when $|x-x_0|<\delta$.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see now. Thanks to all of you for the answers. I still don't understand why in the proof of limits we assume that $\left|f\left(x\right)-l\right|<\varepsilon$ in order to derive that $0<\left|x-x_{0}\right|<\delta$. Shouldn't it be the opposite? $\endgroup$ – Davide La Vardera Dec 16 '17 at 19:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DavideLaVardera: If you want to prove that $l$ is a limit from the definition, you should assume that somebody gives you an unknown $\varepsilon$ and then you need to come up with a $\delta$ such that $0<|x-x_0|<\delta$ implies $|f(x)-l|$. You may be confused by didactic presentation that are about exploring how one might find a $\delta$ that will work -- but this exploration is not part of the proof, just an illustration of the thought process that could lead you to discover details that will allow the proof to work. $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Dec 16 '17 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ Why can't we derive ε given a certain δ? $\endgroup$ – Davide La Vardera Dec 16 '17 at 20:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavideLaVardera: The definition says that for each $\varepsilon$ there must be a qualifying $\delta$. If you start with an arbitrary $\delta$ and work your way to an $\varepsilon$ that works with that, you won't have any guarantee that all possible $\varepsilon$s get a $\delta$. $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Dec 16 '17 at 21:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Davide La Vardera, it's because the definition says $\forall\varepsilon\,\exists\delta$ and not $\forall\delta\,\exists\varepsilon$. $\endgroup$ – Ennar Dec 16 '17 at 21:49
3
$\begingroup$

You can think about it in this way:

first set $\epsilon$ and then you have to find $\delta$ such that the inequality:

$$\left|f\left(x\right)-l\right|<\varepsilon$$

is satisfied.

If you can do it for every $\epsilon>0$ then the limit exists.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.