A definitions for the terms the limit does not exists

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on defining the mathematical terms "the limit does not exist" and "the limit goes to infinity." The user proposes definitions based on the behavior of functions as they approach specific points or infinity. Key points include the formal definitions involving accumulation points and the conditions under which limits are considered to exist or not exist. The community provides feedback, emphasizing the need for clarity and precision in defining limits, particularly in relation to the epsilon-delta definition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with epsilon-delta definitions of limits
  • Knowledge of functions and their behavior at infinity
  • Basic concepts of accumulation points in real analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Explore the concept of accumulation points in real analysis
  • Learn about the behavior of functions at infinity and their asymptotic properties
  • Investigate common misconceptions about limits and their definitions
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematicians, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of limits and their formal definitions in mathematical analysis.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
a definitions for the terms "the limit does not exists"

Since my textbook doesn't have a definitions for the terms "the limit does not exists" and "the limit goes to infinity", I tried to make them up. I'd like to know if they're correct.

1) Consider [itex]f: \mathcal{D}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}[/itex] a function and [itex]x_0[/itex] an accumulation point of [itex]\mathcal{D}[/itex]. We say that the limit as x approaches [itex]x_0[/itex] goes to positive infinity (resp. negative infinity) if [itex]\forall M \in \mathbb{R}, \ \exists \delta>0[/itex] such that [itex]x \in \mathcal{D} \cap V'(x_0,\delta) \Rightarrow f(x)>M[/itex] (resp.[itex]f(x)<M[/itex]), and we write

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow x_0} f(x) = +\infty \ (\mbox{resp. -\infty})[/tex]

2) Consider [itex]f: \mathcal{D}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}[/itex] a function. If [itex]\mathcal{D}[/itex] is unbounded superiorly (?) (i.e. has no upper bound), we say that the limit as x approaches positive infinity goes to positive infinity (resp. negative infinity) if [itex]\exists N \in \mathbb{R}[/itex] such that [itex]\forall x \in \mathcal{D}, \ x>N \Rightarrow f(x)[/itex] is strictly increasing (resp. strictly decreasing). In other words, we say that the limit as x approaches positive infinity goes to positive infinity (resp. negative infinity) if [itex]\exists N \in \mathbb{R}[/itex] such that [itex]\forall y, z \in \mathcal{D}[/itex] and [itex]y, z>N, \ z>y \Rightarrow f(z)>f(y)[/itex] (resp.[itex]f(z)<f(y)[/itex]), and we write

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow \+\infty} f(x) = +\infty \ (\mbox{resp. -\infty})[/tex]


3) We have an analogous definition for the limit as x goes to negative infinity if the domain has no lower bound. And finally,...

4) Consider [itex]f: \mathcal{D}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}[/itex] a function and [itex]x_0[/itex] an accumulation point of [itex]\mathcal{D}[/itex]. We say that the limit as x approaches [itex]x_0[/itex], [itex]+\infty[/itex] or [itex]-\infty[/itex] (whichever applies) does not exists if either

i) the limit goes to [itex]+\infty[/itex].

ii) the limit goes to [itex]-\infty[/itex].

iii) the limit is not unique.


Also, if you can think of another definition, or a caracterisation that would make the proofs easier, I'd be very interested to hear it.

Mmh, I can think of one for definition 2 and 3: For 2) "blah, blah" iif for all sequences [itex]\{x_n\}[/itex] such that [itex]x_n \in \mathcal{D}[/itex] and [itex]\{x_n\}[/itex] is strictly increasing for at least all n greater than a certain [itex]N \in \mathbb{R}[/itex] that has [itex]+\infty[/itex] for a limit, the corresponding sequence [itex]\{f(x_n)\}[/itex] has [itex]+\infty[/itex] (resp. [itex]-\infty[/itex]) for a limit. The caracterisation for 3 is analogous.

Phew, this took 45 minutes to write! :cry:

Thanks for your replies.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1) is correct except that you omitted to say the "limit of what?"

2) looks wrong. i.e it differs greatly from the case in 1) which ti should resemble closely. i.e. the limit of f(x) as x goes to plus infinity, equals plus infinity iff, for every N, there is an M, such that for all x larger than M, f(x) is larger than N.

3) The definition of does nor exist also oooks highly suspicious. In general just negate the rpevious statements.

e.g. the limit of f(x) as x goes to x0 does not exist iff, for all t, there is some e>0, such that for all d > 0, there exists and x closer to x0 than d, and yet with f(x) further from t than e.
 
IOW, start with the epsilon-delta way to say "the limit exists" and negate it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K