Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Limits at non-accumulation points

  1. Jan 16, 2008 #1
    Why are limits of functions not defined at non-accumulation points?

    For example, take the function f(x) = k, for x in Z

    Then based on the epsilon delta definition of a limit, for any epsilon > 0, we can always find a delta, for which 0 < |x-x_0| < delta implies |f(x)-k| = 0 < epsilon. Thus, the limit of every non-accumulation point of f(x) has limit = k.

    This example seems to contradict the fact that limits are undefined at non-accumulation points.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 16, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    i think they mean that if the function were defined on a given set, then we could extend it sometimes to non accumulation points using limits, but there is no unique way to do this at non accum. points.
  4. Jan 16, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Why should f(x)= k in your example?

    If x0 is not an accumulation point of (the domain of) f, then there exist some delta such that any x such that 0< |x- x0|< delta is not in the domain of f. Then 0< |x- x0|< delta does not imply |f(x)- k|= 0, because f(x) is not defined and so |f(x)- f(x0| has no value.
  5. Jan 17, 2008 #4
    Interesting, I asked my teacher this question and he told me to prove:

    If c is not an accumulation point of the domain of
    f, then for every number L we have

    lim f(x) = L.

    How do you go about proving this?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Limits at non-accumulation points