Next, the negative must be distributed to the “a” and to the “L” of (a + L) and an L must be substituted for f(x) because it is given that the [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = L[/tex]
|x + L - a - L|...
That part is wrong, you cannot sub L for f(x) like that, it's not correct.
Now, back at the start, the problem gives that:
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = L[/tex], and you must use
this to prove: [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} [x + f(x) ] = a + L[/tex]
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x) = L[/tex] means that, for any arbitrary small [tex]\epsilon[/tex], there exists a [tex]\delta[/tex], such that:
[tex]0 < |x - a| < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L| < \epsilon[/tex]What we should prove is:
For any arbitrary small [tex]\epsilon_1[/tex], there exists a [tex]\delta_1[/tex], such that:
[tex]0 < |x - a| < \delta_1 \Rightarrow |[x + f(x)] - [a + L]| < \epsilon_1[/tex]
We will deal with this part:
[tex]|[x + f(x)] - [a + L]| = |(x - a) + [f(x) - L]| < |x - a| + |f(x) - L|[/tex]Now we choose, [tex]\epsilon = \frac{\epsilon_1}{2}[/tex].
Now, there should exists a [tex]\delta[/tex], such that: [tex]0 < |x - a| < \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L| < \epsilon = \frac{\epsilon_1}{2}[/tex]
Choose [tex]\delta_1[/tex], so that: [tex]\delta_1 = \mbox{min} \left( \delta, \frac{\epsilon_1}{2} \right)[/tex]
[tex]\delta_1 = \mbox{min} \left( \delta, \frac{\epsilon_1}{2} \right) \Rightarrow \delta_1 \leq \delta[/tex], so we have:
[tex]0 < |x - a| < \delta_1 \leq \delta \Rightarrow |f(x) - L| < \epsilon = \frac{\epsilon_1}{2}[/tex]
[tex]\delta_1 = \mbox{min} \left( \delta, \frac{\epsilon_1}{2} \right) \Rightarrow \delta_1 \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}[/tex]Now, if we have:
[tex]0 < |x - a| < \delta_1 \Rightarrow |[x + f(x)] - [a + L]| < |x - a| + |f(x) - L| < \delta_1 + \epsilon < \frac{\epsilon_1}{2} + \frac{\epsilon_1}{2} = \epsilon_1[/tex], so:
[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} [x + f(x) ] = a + L[/tex] (Q.E.D)
Is there any where unclear?
Can you do the same to part II? :)