4
$\begingroup$

I'm reading this in which the author says that $\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=y$ if for every neiborhood $U$ of $y$, $f^{-1}(U)$ belongs to the filter of neigbohoods of $a$.

What about the following function ? $f(x)=1$ if $x=0$ and $f(x)=0$ otherwise.

With the usual notion of limit, we have $\lim_{x\to 0}f(x)=0$ regardless to the fact that $f(0)$ itself has a "strange" value.

With the limit defined from the filter of neigborhoods, the function $f$ has no limit at $x=0$.

EDIT(add justification): if $U=(-1/2, 1/2)$ we have $f^{-1}(U)=R\setminus\{0\}$, which is not a neigborhood of $0$.

Am I missing something or the "filter" limit does not brings back the usual notion of limit ?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

You're right in saying that I should be more careful there and take the filter base consisting of all punctured neighborhood of the given point (and the corresponding filter).

I will add that, for example, Dixmier's General Topology uses the same notion of limit along a filter base (Definition 2.2.1) and the author takes this as the basic notion of the limit - while the limit corresponding to punctured neighborhoods is taken as one of the variants listed in Example 2.2.4 (together with some other kinds of limit, such as $x\to x_0^+$ or $x\to\infty$).

The definition of limit which takes all neighborhoods (not only the punctured ones) is sometimes used, but it is definitely rarer. See also: What's the purpose of the two different definitions used for limit?

| 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.