Understanding the Difference: Continuous vs Limit at Point

In summary: If x_0 is not an accumulation point, then f(x)->f(x_0) as x->x_0 is true but vacuously true.In summary, the conversation discusses the difference between the definitions of continuity at a point and having a limit at a point for a function. The book defines continuity at a point as having a limit at that point (from both sides) and the values of the function at that point being equal to the limit. However, it is possible for a function to have a limit at a point without the value of the function being equal to the limit. The conversation also delves into the concept of accumulation points and how they relate to the definitions of continuity and limits. It is noted that
  • #1
futurebird
272
0
I'm confused about a point that my book on real analysis is making about the difference between the definition of a function being continuos at at point and the definition of a function having a limit L at a point.

My rough understanding of the matter is that in order for a function to be continuous at a point the function must have a limit L at the point (from both sides) and the values of the function at that point must be L. However it is possible to have a limit at a point, even if the value of that function at the point is not the same as the limit.

From the book:

DEFINITION: Suppose E is a subset of R and [tex]f: E \rightarrow R[/tex]. If [tex]x_0 \in E[/tex], then f is continuous at [tex]x_0[/tex] iff for each [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex], there is a [tex]\delta > 0[/tex] such that if

[tex]|x-x_0|< \delta[/tex], with [tex]x \in E[/tex],

then

[tex]|f(x)-f(x0)|< \epsilon[/tex].

Compare this with the definition of the limit of a function at a point [tex]x_0[/tex] . First of all, for continuity at [tex]x_0[/tex], the number must belong to E but it need not be an accumulation point of E. ( Is this saying that f(x) = L? If not what is it saying? ) Indeed, if [tex]f: E \rightarrow R[/tex] with [tex]x_0 \in E[/tex] and [tex]x_0[/tex] not an accumulation point of E, then there is a [tex]\delta > 0[/tex] such that if [tex]|x - x_0 | < \delta[/tex] and [tex]x \in E[/tex], then [tex]x=x_0[/tex] .​

That last bit has me lost. Why would [tex]x = x_0[/tex] if [tex]x_0[/tex] is not an accumulation point of E?

I think that [tex]x_0[/tex] , not being an accumulation point means that there is at least one neighborhood of [tex]x_0[/tex] that contains a finite number, possibly zero vales of f(x) when x is in a delta neighborhood of [tex]x_0[/tex]. But how does this force [tex]x = x_0[/tex]?

The book defines accumulation points interms of series:

A real number A is an accumulation point of S iff every neighborhood of A contains infinitely many points of S.​

So, not an accumulation point would mean that every neighborhood of A contains finite points of S, or zero ponits of S... ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
futurebird said:
I think that [tex]x_0[/tex] , not being an accumulation point means that there is at least one neighborhood of [tex]x_0[/tex] that contains a finite number, possibly zero vales of f(x) when x is in a delta neighborhood of [tex]x_0[/tex]. But how does this force [tex]x = x_0[/tex]?

Let's say that [itex]x_0 \in E[/itex] is not an accumulation point of [itex]E[/itex]. Then there is some [itex]\delta[/itex] so that:
[tex]E \cap (x_0 - \delta,x_0+\delta) = x_0[/itex]

Then the hypothesis:
[tex]|x-x_0|<\delta[/tex]
and
[tex]x \in E[/tex]
is equivalent to
[tex]x_0 \in E \cap (x_0 - \delta,x_0+\delta) = x_0[/tex]
which implies
[tex]x_0=x[/tex]
(and obviously)
[tex]f(x_0)-f(x)=0[/tex]
 
  • #3
NateTG said:
...
is equivalent to
[tex]x_0 \in E \cap (x_0 - \delta,x_0+\delta) = x_0[/tex]
...

Shouldn't it be [tex]x \in E \cap (x_0 - \delta,x_0+\delta) = x_0[/tex]?
 
  • #4
A function is vacuously continuous at isolated points.
 
  • #5
zhentil said:
A function is vacuously continuous at isolated points.

That helps a lot. But let me see if I know what you mean. If I have the set of points N, the natural numbers then it's vacuously continuous a say 7?

That's odd.

Is that what this is all about?
 
  • #6
The point is trivial. x_0 an accumulation pt in E iff every nbd of x_0 contains a point in E iff every neighbourhood of x_0 contains infinitely many points in E. If x_0 is not an accumulation pt in E then there exists a nbd of x_0 such that it only contains finitely many points in E.

Trivial point: Well, if x_0 is not an accumulation point in E then there are finitely many x's in E within some delta>0 distance from x_0. Take the closest point to x_0, this exists as we're taking the minimum of some finite set. Call the distance between x_0 and this closest point delta_min. So the only points in E with the property that |x-x_0|<delta_min is the one point x_0. (Draw a picture: this immediately clear).

Some authors absolutely refuse to talk about limits of functions at non accumulation points. The author of whatever you're quoting is obviously not one of them. The problem arises when you look at the difference between continuity and limits. Limits talk only about the elements getting closer to some point (but not the point itself), continuity talks about elements getting closer to some point AND the point itself. (0<|x-x_0|<delta => |f(x)-f(x_0)|<epsilon for limits and |x-x_0|<delta => |f(x)-f(x_0)|<epsilon for continuity)

Saying that functions are vacuously continuous at non accumulation is awkward as the limits NEVER exist, yet they will always satisfy the latter criterion for continuity above.

Take your example. The integers with the identity function. What's the limit of id(x) as x->7? If it did exist then for every epsilon there would be a delta such that 0<|x-7|<delta (x an integer) =>|x-7|<epsilon. Take epsilon=1/2. It's clear that |x-7|<1/2 and x integral iff x=7. But x cannot be 7, as then |x-7|=|7-7|=0. Hence id(x) does not have a limit as x->7. But it does satisfy the delta-epsilon definition of continuity at x=7: since 7 is not an accumulation point (only one point in any ball centered at 7 with radius strictly less than 1) we can always pick delta<1 and so |x-7|<delta<1=>x=7=>|id(7)-id(7)|=0<epsilon for any epsilon>0.

Do you see how continuity at non accumulation points is weird? Heuristically, we think of continuity as getting closer and closer to some point. But if we're talking about an non accumulation point you can't get closer and closer! There's just one lone point. Non-accumulation points are called isolated points -- this should help you remember the definition.

Summary:

f(x)->f(x_0) as x->x_0 is equivalent to continuous at x_0 (epsilon/delta defn) if x_0 is an accumulation point
 
Last edited:
  • #7
futurebird said:
That helps a lot. But let me see if I know what you mean. If I have the set of points N, the natural numbers then it's vacuously continuous a say 7?

That's odd.

Is that what this is all about?
Yes. [tex] |x-7| < 1/2 \Rightarrow |f(x)-f(7)| = 0. [/tex]
 
Last edited:

1. What is the definition of continuous at a point?

Continuous at a point means that the function is defined at that point and the limit of the function at that point exists and is equal to the value of the function at that point.

2. How is continuity at a point different from continuity in an interval?

Continuity at a point refers to the behavior of a function at a specific point, while continuity in an interval refers to the behavior of a function over a range of values.

3. What is the significance of the limit at a point?

The limit at a point is important because it determines the behavior of the function at that point. It allows us to understand how the function is approaching the given point and whether or not it is continuous at that point.

4. How can we determine if a function is continuous at a point?

A function is continuous at a point if the limit of the function at that point exists and is equal to the value of the function at that point. Alternatively, we can also use the continuity criteria, which states that a function is continuous at a point if the left and right-hand limits exist and are equal to the value of the function at that point.

5. What are the common applications of understanding the difference between continuous and limit at a point?

Understanding the difference between continuous and limit at a point is important in many branches of mathematics, such as calculus, where it is used to analyze the behavior of functions and solve problems involving rates of change. It is also used in physics, engineering, and other fields where mathematical models are used to describe real-world phenomena.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
811
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
993
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
11
Views
902
Back
Top