1
$\begingroup$

I have known the precise ($\epsilon$, $\delta$) definition of a limit,

$$\lim_{x\rightarrow a} f(x) = L \iff \forall \epsilon>0,\exists\delta>0 : (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies |f(x)-L|<\epsilon)$$

for quite some time, but I've just now questioned whether or not the right side of the implication:

$$\forall \epsilon>0,\exists\delta>0 : (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies |f(x)-L|<\epsilon)$$

Could be put in the form

$$\forall \epsilon>0,\exists\delta>0 : (0<|x-a|<\epsilon \implies |f(x)-L|<\delta)$$

I'm asking this because I questioned whether it was possible in my class, but my instructor told me that wouldn't be correct, and I still don't understand why. From what I understand, this definition is saying that if you have a function $f(x)$, and you'd like to show that the limit exists at a point $x=a$, it is sufficient to show that given any arbitrary wiggle-room size $\epsilon$ about $L$ for $f(x)$, there is a corresponding wiggle-room size $\delta$ about $a$ for $x$, and by corresponding I mean having their boundaries meet up.

But then, given that we are trying to basically find (or show that there is) a $\delta$ for every $\epsilon$, isn't it the same thing to show that for every $\epsilon$ there is a $\delta$ in this case. Clearly, the range for $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ is continuous and related (as one goes to $0$, so does the other).

Could you tell me how and why I'm wrong? Maybe an example of where the the strict definition of a limit holds but my hypothesized reformulated one doesn't?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Take $f(x) \equiv1$, $a=0$ and $L = 2$

Then $\forall \epsilon >0, \exists \delta>0$ (take $\delta = 10$ for example), such that $$0<|x-0|<\epsilon \implies |f(x)-L|<\delta$$

But we can't say $\lim_{x\to 0}f(x) = 2$

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Ah so my rearranged version of the definition would then just simply be saying that within a certain interval about $a$, $f(x)$ is bounded (but in a funky way), right? $\endgroup$ – Arturo don Juan Sep 23 '14 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ArturoDonJuan yes, your definition implies $f$ is locally bounded around $a$ $\endgroup$ – Petite Etincelle Sep 23 '14 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! All the answers were great, but I like this one best. $\endgroup$ – Arturo don Juan Sep 23 '14 at 17:23
1
$\begingroup$

They aren't equivalent. The trick is to remove as many symbols as possible until you get a sentence in English.

The one for continuity says that for every $\epsilon$, there is a $\delta$ depending on $\epsilon$ such that making $x$ within $\delta$ of $a$ makes $f(x)$ within $\epsilon$ of $L$. I.e. for every interval $I$ containing $L$, there is an interval $J$ around $a$ in which for every $x$ inside $J$, $f(x)$ is within $I$.

The second one says that for every $\epsilon$, there is a $\delta$ such that when $x$ is within $\epsilon$ of $a$, $f(x)$ is within $\delta$ of $\epsilon$. I.e. that for every interval $I$ containing $a$, $f(x)$ is within an interval $J$ around $L$ - in other words that that $f$ is bounded on every interval containing $a$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Perhaps one should be "nice." But I am not. Your version is absolutely, totally wrong. Manipulation will never give anything useful, we need to look at rhe geometry.

For example, let $f(x)=0$ if $x\lt 0$ and $f(x)=1$ if $x\ge 0$.

Let $a=0$ and let $L=3$. Let $\delta=77$. Then for all $\epsilon\gt 0$, if $|x-a|\lt \epsilon$, then $|f(x)-L|\lt \delta$.

Remark: Let $f(x)$ be any bounded function, whether continuous or not. Then there will be a $\delta$ that satisfies your condition.

$\endgroup$

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.