I came up with this proof about Product theorem of limits after I watched "MIT Calculus Revisited" and I hope it's OK:

primal work on proof

Given $\hspace{0.5in}$ $$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to a} f\left( x \right) = K \hspace{0.1in} and \hspace{0.1in} \mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to a} g\left( x \right) = L$$

we hope to prove the existence of $$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to a} [f\left( x \right) \cdot g\left( x \right)]= L \cdot K$$ means by Epsilon Delta definition :

$\hspace{1.4in}$every number $\varepsilon > 0$ there is some number $\delta > 0$ such that $$\left| {(f\left( x \right) \cdot g\left( x \right))-(L \cdot K) } \right| < \varepsilon \hspace{0.5in}{\mbox{whenever}}\hspace{0.5in}0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta$$

$\hspace{.91in} \vert{(f\left( x \right) \cdot g\left( x \right))\vert-\vert(L \cdot K)\vert } < \varepsilon\hspace{.2in} \text{By Triangular inequality (1)} $

$\hspace{.91in} \vert{f\left( x \right)\vert \cdot \vert g\left( x \right)\vert- {\vert L \vert \cdot \vert K \vert}} < \varepsilon \hspace{0.2in} \text{by absoluate value product (2) }$

$\hspace{.91in} \vert{K + (f\left( x \right)-K) \vert \cdot \vert L + (g\left( x \right)-L)\vert- {\vert L \vert \cdot \vert K \vert}} < \varepsilon \hspace{0.2in}\text{Adding zeros)(3) }$

$\hspace{.91in} { \vert L \vert \cdot \vert(f\left( x \right)-K) \vert +\vert K \vert \cdot \vert(g\left( x \right)-L)\vert{}+\vert f\left( x \right)-K \cdot g\left( x \right)-L\vert } < \varepsilon \hspace{.08in}\text{simplify(4)}$

$\hspace{.9in}$put $\vert L \vert \cdot \vert f\left( x \right)-K\vert < \varepsilon/3$

$\hspace{.9in}$put $\vert K \vert \cdot \vert g\left( x \right)-L\vert < \varepsilon/3$

$\hspace{.9in}$put $\vert f\left( x \right)-K\vert < \sqrt{\varepsilon/3}$

$\hspace{.9in}$put $\vert g\left( x \right)-L\vert < \sqrt{\varepsilon/3}$

Actual proof

let $\varepsilon > 0 \hspace{0.1in}$ chooes $\varepsilon_1 = \varepsilon/3$ $\hspace{0.1in}$ and $\hspace{0.1in}$ $\varepsilon_2 = \varepsilon/3 \hspace{0.1in}$ then there exist

$\delta_1 > 0 \hspace{0.1in} $ such that $ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert L \vert \cdot \vert {f\left( x \right) -K } \right| < \varepsilon_1 = \varepsilon/3 \hspace{0.2in}{\mbox{whenever}}\hspace{0.2in}0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta_1 $

$\delta_2 > 0 \hspace{0.1in} $ such that $ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert K \vert \cdot \vert {g\left( x \right) -L } \right| < \varepsilon_2 = \varepsilon/3 \hspace{0.2in}{\mbox{whenever}}\hspace{0.2in}0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta_2 $

also choose $\varepsilon_3 = \sqrt{\varepsilon/3}$ $\hspace{0.1in}$ and $\hspace{0.1in}$ $\varepsilon_4 =\sqrt{\varepsilon/3} \hspace{0.1in}$ then there exist

$\delta_3 > 0 \hspace{0.1in} $ such that $ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert {f\left( x \right) -K } \right| < \varepsilon_3 = \sqrt{\varepsilon/3} \hspace{0.2in}{\mbox{whenever}}\hspace{0.2in}0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta_3 $

$\delta_4 > 0 \hspace{0.1in} $ such that $ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert {g\left( x \right) -L } \right| < \varepsilon_4 = \sqrt{\varepsilon/3} \hspace{0.2in}{\mbox{whenever}}\hspace{0.2in}0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta_4 $

choose the $\delta=\min(\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3,\delta_4)$ then :

$$ \begin{pmatrix} \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert L \vert \cdot \vert {f\left( x \right) -K } \right| < \varepsilon_1 = \varepsilon/3\\ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert K \vert \cdot \vert {g\left( x \right) -L } \right| < \varepsilon_2 = \varepsilon/3\\ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert {f\left( x \right) -K } \right| < \varepsilon_3 = \sqrt{\varepsilon/3}\\ \hspace{0.1in} \left \vert {g\left( x \right) -L } \right| < \varepsilon_4 = \sqrt{\varepsilon/3}\\ \end{pmatrix} $$ Will all hold for $\delta$

Adding the first two inequalities and Multiplying the last two inequalities we will get

$\hspace{.91in} { \vert L \vert \cdot \vert(f\left( x \right)-K) \vert +\vert K \vert \cdot \vert(g\left( x \right)-L)\vert{}+\vert f\left( x \right)-K \cdot g\left( x \right)-L\vert } < \varepsilon$ ${\mbox{whenever}}\hspace{2in}0 < \left| {x - a} \right| < \delta$

and that is what we looking for.


I think your proof is correct, but perhaps the choice of $\sqrt{\varepsilon/3}$ is not the most desirable, since you may need to show that if $\varepsilon$ is small, then $\sqrt\varepsilon$ is still small. In other words, that $\sqrt{x}\to 0$ when $x\to 0$.

To avoid such mess, the standard trick is to do as follows: $$|f(x)\cdot g(x) - LK| = |f(x)\cdot g(x) - f(x)\cdot L + f(x)\cdot L - KL| \leq $$ $$\leq |f(x)\cdot g(x) - f(x)\cdot L| + |f(x)\cdot L - KL|$$

Can you continue from here?

  • $\begingroup$ At first I think it is intuitively to consider $\sqrt\varepsilon$ will approach 0 as $\varepsilon$ approach 0 and by the restriction $\varepsilon$ > 0 we will guarantee also that any value under square root will be positive , for example look at the table : $$ \begin{array}{c|lcr} \varepsilon& \ \sqrt{\varepsilon/3} \\ \hline 1 & 0.577 \\ 0.1 & 0.182 \\ 0.01 & 0.057 \\ 0.001 & 0.0182\\ 0.0001 & 0.00577\\ ... & ... \end{array} $$ $\endgroup$ – Ammar Bamhdi May 22 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ and second, for the expression $ |f(x)\cdot g(x) - f(x)\cdot K| + |f(x)\cdot K - LK| = |f(x)|[(g(x)-K)]+|K|[f(x)-L]$ Note that i have no control over$|g(x)-K|$ and $|f(x)-L|$ thank You $\endgroup$ – Ammar Bamhdi May 22 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, to the first comment, it is of course true, but perhaps it is not very common in this particular proof. To the second comment, I mistook K for L. I have corrected it now. $\endgroup$ – A. Salguero-Alarcón May 22 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ $|f(x)\cdot g(x) - f(x)\cdot L| + |f(x)\cdot L - KL| = |f(x)| |(g(x)-L)| + |L| |f(x)-K|$ OK but I do not know how to control $|f(x)|$ ?! $\endgroup$ – Ammar Bamhdi May 22 at 21:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $|f(x)| \leq |f(x) - K| + |K|$ $\endgroup$ – A. Salguero-Alarcón May 22 at 21:51

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.