MHB L'Hopital's Rule _ Statement of Theorem (Houshang H. Sohrab)

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Houshang H. Sohrab's book: Basic Real Analysis (Second Edition).

I need help with an aspect of Sohrab's statement of Theorem 6.5.1 (L'Hopital's Rule) on pages 262-263. Sohrab's statement of Theorem 6.5.1 reads as follows:
View attachment 3935
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3936
At the conclusion of the statement of the theorem, Sohrab writes:" ... ... Note that, for finite a, we obviously have $$\lim{x \to a} = \lim{x \to a+}$$ ... ... "I do not understand this remark.

Surely since $$f, g$$ are defined on $$(a, b)$$ the whole statement of the Theorem should be in terms of limits of the form $$\lim{x \to a+}$$ ... indeed for a function defined on $$(a,b)$$ it does not seem right to me to talk about limits of the form $$ \lim{x \to a}$$?

Can someone please clarify this issue for me?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Houshang H. Sohrab's book: Basic Real Analysis (Second Edition).

I need help with an aspect of Sohrab's statement of Theorem 6.5.1 (L'Hopital's Rule) on pages 262-263. Sohrab's statement of Theorem 6.5.1 reads as follows:At the conclusion of the statement of the theorem, Sohrab writes:" ... ... Note that, for finite a, we obviously have $$\lim{x \to a} = \lim{x \to a+}$$ ... ... "I do not understand this remark.

Surely since $$f, g$$ are defined on $$(a, b)$$ the whole statement of the Theorem should be in terms of limits of the form $$\lim{x \to a+}$$ ... indeed for a function defined on $$(a,b)$$ it does not seem right to me to talk about limits of the form $$ \lim{x \to a}$$?

Can someone please clarify this issue for me?

Peter
I think it is perfectly alright to write $\lim_{x\to a}$ even though the function is not defined on the left of $a$ (and on $a$).
It will just be intepretted as $\lim_{x\to a^+}$.
The remark by Sohrab is there, I guess, because it doesn't mean anything to write $\lim_{x\to -\infty+}$. So when $a=-\infty$, $\lim_{x\to a}$ has to be interpretted as $\lim_{x\to -\infty}$ and not, of course, as $\lim_{x\to -\infty+}$.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K