Def.: let be $(A,\tau)$,$(C,\zeta)$ two topological spaces, $f \in C^E$, with $E \subseteq A$, and $x_0$ an accumulation point of $E$, a point $l \in C$ is limit of $f$ as $x$ approaches $x_0$ if $$\forall Y \in \displaystyle\mathcal{U}_{(C,\zeta)}(l) (\exists X \in \displaystyle\mathcal{U}_{(A,\tau)}(x_0)(f((X-\{x_0\} )\cap E) \subseteq Y))$$

$\displaystyle\mathcal{U}_{(A,\tau)}(x_0)$ is neighbourhood system for $x_0$

$\displaystyle\mathcal{U}_{(C,\zeta)}(l)$ is neighbourhood system for $l$

Is correct? Thanks in advance!

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, that is a correct definition of the limit of $f$ at $x_0$.

Another way to put the definition is to say that $\tilde{f}\colon E\cup \{x_0\} \to C$ defined by

$$\tilde{f}(x) = \begin{cases} f(x) &, x \in E\setminus\{x_0\} \\ l &, x = x_0\end{cases}$$

is continuous.

  • 1
    It agrees with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…, at least.... – Henno Brandsma Jun 16 '14 at 12:04
  • @Daniel Fischer, Is it possible to define the limit of $f:E\to D$ with $D \subseteq C$? – mle Aug 1 '14 at 18:59
  • 1
    @mle Sure. $D$ is a topological space too when endowed with the subspace topology induced by $C$ (or any other topology, but then $D\subseteq C$ is irrelevant). You just replace $\mathcal{U}_{(C,\zeta)}(l)$ with $\mathcal{U}_{(D, \zeta')}(l)$ in the definition. – Daniel Fischer Aug 1 '14 at 19:07
  • 1
    @mle For the standard definition, you need $l\in D$. If you want to allow a limit of $f\colon E\to D$ to lie in $C\setminus D$, you need some modification (like you need for limits of $\pm\infty$ for real-valued functions). You can then stick to $$\forall Y \in \displaystyle\mathcal{U}_{(C,\zeta)}(l) (\exists X \in \displaystyle\mathcal{U}_{(A,\tau)}(x_0)(f((X-\{x_0\} )\cap E) \subseteq Y))$$ which effectively means that for the definition of limits, we forget that the range of $f$ is contained in the subset $D$ of $C$. But that ignores that only elements in the closure of $D$ can be limits, – Daniel Fischer Aug 1 '14 at 19:31
  • 1
    so one could make a compromise and consider $f\colon E \to \overline{D}$. Or you can replace the $$f((X-\{x_0\})\cap E)\subseteq Y$$ with $$f((X-\{x_0\})\cap E) \subseteq (Y\cap D).$$ (That doesn't change the meaning, but it emphasises different points of view.) – Daniel Fischer Aug 1 '14 at 19:31

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.