This is sort of a follow up to my previous question

Say you have $$ \lim_{x\to +\infty} f(x) $$

where $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} , x \in \mathbb{R}$

What exactly does this mean? From the last question I asked I understand $+\infty$ to be a concept (I also read this) meaning "a number that is arbitrarily large" (taken from that page).

The definition of the limit of a function, as I pointed out in my last question, specifies that the point which $x$ approaches must be a limit point; however, again from my last question, I came to understand that $+\infty$ is not a limit point (considering how I described it above this makes sense, as its not a number but a concept), so how can we take the traditional limit of this?

I have thought about this and have come to the conclusion that a traditional $\epsilon , \delta$ proof wouldn't make sense, and that this simply means "what is the value of $f(x)$ as $x$ gets really really big. Is this correct thinking?

Thanks in advanced!

  • $\begingroup$ Does $\infty$ mean $+\infty$? If so, than it is less ambiguous to denote it that way. Otherwise, this could very well be the extra point of the one point compactification of $\mathbb{R}$, for instance. $\endgroup$ – Julien Mar 31 '13 at 2:33
  • $\begingroup$ yes - sorry, will edit to fix $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Mar 31 '13 at 2:35

The statement that


means precisely this:

for each $\epsilon>0$ there is a real number $x_\epsilon$ such that $|f(x)-L|<\epsilon$ whenever $x\ge x_\epsilon$.

That’s the actual definition of $(1)$. As you can see, it’s very similar to the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition of $$\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L\;,$$ but with $|x-a|<\delta$ replaced by $x\ge x_\epsilon$. You don’t have an actual notion of ‘distance from $x$ to $\infty$’, but just as making $\delta$ smaller makes $|x-a|<\delta$ a stronger statement about the closeness of $x$ to $a$, so making $x_\epsilon$ larger makes $x\ge x_\epsilon$ a stronger statement about the ‘closeness’ of $x$ to $\infty$, speaking informally. (As I said in comments on the earlier question, this can be made more formal in a more general topological setting.)

  • $\begingroup$ Aha! So doesn't this sort of describe mathematically what I said in words? $f(x)$ is as close to $L$ as you need provided $x$ is somehow arbitrarily large? $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Mar 31 '13 at 2:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Dan: Yes, at an informal level $-$ in the same sense that the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition tells you that you can get $f(x)$ arbitrarily close to $L$ by taking $x$ sufficiently close to $a$. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Mar 31 '13 at 2:37
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, is this then how the limit is taken of sequences? However for sequences $x_{\epsilon}$ is restricted to $\mathbb{N}$? And then you cannot take any other limits of sequences since there aren't any limit points? Or is there still something that I'm missing, from a topological perspective? $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Mar 31 '13 at 2:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dan: The latter would do; you can then lump it together with the notion of $\lim_{x\to\infty}f(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Mar 31 '13 at 2:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dan: Thanks! I’m retired these days, so MSE is virtually all of my teaching. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Mar 31 '13 at 3:05

If you got the idea that $+\infty$ is the concept of arbitrarily large numbers, then you got the wrong idea. There are relationships, though; for example, $+\infty$ represents the 'limiting' behavior of "arbitrarily large positive numbers" in the same fashion that $0$ represents the 'limiting' behavior of "arbitrarily small positive numbers".

The right (IMHO) way treat $+\infty$ in the way it's used in calculus is by the extended real numbers. The extended real numbers comprise all ordinary real numbers, and two additional numbers which we call $+\infty$ and $-\infty$.

It turns out that, in this setting, $\lim_{x \to +\infty} f(x) = L$ or $\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = +\infty$ means exactly the same thing as any other limit... once we pass to the general topological notion of limit.

In the more general setting, rather than having an $\epsilon$ or a $\delta$ that says how far some number can be from some other number, we instead consider the idea of an open set or an open neighborhood. The definition of a limit is:

$\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L$ if and only if, for every open neighborhood $U$ containing $L$, there exists an open neighborhood $V$ containing $a$, such that for every $x \in V$ such that $x \neq a$, we have $f(x) \in U$.

In the standard real numbers, we can choose to define "open neighborhood" to mean "open interval". So every neighborhood looks like $(a,b)$: e.g. $(L - \epsilon, L + \epsilon)$ is an open neighborhood when $\epsilon > 0$. Hopefully it's clear how the general notion of limit reduces to the version you learned in elementary calculus!

When using the extended real numbers, we also take $(a, +\infty]$ and $[-\infty, a)$ as open neighborhoods (where $a$ is an ordinary real number). So,

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

Means, after a little bit of rewriting and simplification,

For every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an $N$ such that for every (ordinary) real number $x > N$ we have $|f(x) - L| < \epsilon$

which is exactly what you learned in elementary calculus!

  • $\begingroup$ Warning: I think I have some subtle error in my definition of limit; it should be correct in 'most' cases, but I think it gets some weird cases wrong. (e.g. when you have open neighborhoods consisting of only a single point) $\endgroup$ – user14972 Mar 31 '13 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ I believe with regards to the definition of a limit you mean $f(x) \in U$ not $x \in U$ - this makes sense except for the fact that I'm not talking about the extended real number line, I'm talking about strictly $\mathbb{R}$. So then with regard to your definition of a limit, $\infty$ would have to be quantified in some sort of way in order to have the neightborhood of $\infty$, wouldnt it? $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Mar 31 '13 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ @DanZimm: Okay, so I had a blatant error too! Fixed. Yes, you're talking about the real number line, but the real number line is a subspace of the extended real number line, and your function $f(x) : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ automatically becomes a (partial) function on the extended real number line, defined everywhere except at $\pm \infty$... and being undefined at $+\infty$ doesn't get in the way of the definition of a limit at $+\infty$ (or at any other point). $\endgroup$ – user14972 Mar 31 '13 at 4:23
  • $\begingroup$ It is also practical and useful to do "continuous extension" at $\pm \infty$ as you would do in other cases (e.g. extending $x/x$ to be defined at $0$). I wouldn't expect any of my colleagues to even bat at an eye if I wrote something like $\arctan(+\infty) = \pi/2$ -- and would only give slight pause (if any) if I did the same with any other function that had a limit at $+\infty$. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Mar 31 '13 at 4:28
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, so this sort of unifies all types of limits with regard to neighborhoods, right? If so (as long as I understand this properly) I like how this is phrased all the same $\endgroup$ – DanZimm Mar 31 '13 at 4:34

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.