Often, continuity is derived as a "special case" of the limit of a function, which is defined as: Let D be a subset of R. The function $f:D \rightarrow R$ is said to converge to $y \in R$ for $x \rightarrow x0$ (where $x0$ must be a limit point of D), i.e., $$\lim_{x \rightarrow x_0} f(x) = y$$ if and only if $$\forall \varepsilon >0 \quad\exists \delta>0 \quad\forall x \in D: \quad0<|x-x_0|<\delta: \quad|f(x)-y|<\varepsilon$$ I want to emphasize that $x_0$ need not be an element of the domain D of the function f (but it has to be a limit point thereof). As a result, $x$ must not be equal to $x_0$ which is expressed via $\quad0<|x-x_0|$. (I am aware that there is a newer definition of the limit of a function which allows that $x=x_0$, but I dont want to discuss this case here)

Now, continuity is often just defined by the requirement that $y=f(x_0)$ in the definition of the limit of a function, i.e., $$\lim_{x \rightarrow x_0} f(x) = f(x_0)$$ With the additional requirement that now $x_0$ need to be in D.

If I now just plug $y=f(x_0)$ into the above defintion of the limit of a function I will obtain the epsilon delta definition: $$\forall \varepsilon >0 \quad\exists \delta>0 \quad\forall x \in D: \quad 0<|x-x_0|<\delta: \quad|f(x)-f(x_0)|<\varepsilon$$

HOWEVER, in essentially all books, in the definition of continuity the requirement $0<|x-x_0|$ is ommitted, i.e., $x=x_0$ is allowed.

My question is: Why is this requirement $0<|x-x_0|$ ommitted in the definition of continuity?

What concerns me is just that the expression $\lim_\limits{x \rightarrow x_0} f(x)$ has a specific, fixed meaning which is the epsilon delta criterion of the limit of a function. And just by plugging in $f(x_0)$ for $y$ in that definition (and thereby obtaining the defintion of continuity) should not alter the definition. In other words, these two definitions seem not to be equivalent with continuity just being a special case where $y=f(x_0)$. Because, if I start out from the definition of continuity and want to recover the definition of the limit of a function and just substitute $f(x_0)$ by $y$, then I will come to a wrong definition of the limit of a function, missing the requirement that $0<|x-x_0|$.

  • $\begingroup$ Because $f$ has to be defined at the point $x_0$ in order to be continuous at $x_0$. $\endgroup$ – Tab1e May 16 '20 at 7:13
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I know. But that doesnt mean that I have to allow that I also look at $x=x_0$ for the x in the $\delta$ neighbourhood of $x_0$. The definition would be just fine without allowing $x=x_0$ to my understandings $\endgroup$ – guest1 May 16 '20 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ NO. If $x_0$ is an isolated point, it has to be the case $x=x_0$. $\endgroup$ – Tab1e May 16 '20 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thats true. Great thanks! $\endgroup$ – guest1 May 18 '20 at 7:21

¿$x=x_0$ make sense? $|x-x_0|$ is usually omitted because we asume $x_0\in B(x,\delta)$ (or the equivalent of B in other topological space). Obviously $x_0\in B(x_0,\delta)\;$. Try to take a look of $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ is continue if $\;\;\forall V$ (open) in $Y \; | \; f(x_0)\in Y$ exist $ U\in X$ (open) $\; |\; x_0\in U $ and $f(U)\subset V$


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.