Moving limits in and out of functions

  • #1
When is the following equivalence valid?

$$\lim_{x \to a} f(g(x)) = f(\lim_{x \to a} g(x))$$

I was told that continuity of f is key here, but I'm not positive.

This question comes up, for instance in one proof showing the equivalence of the limit definition of the number e to the definition of the inverse of the natural logarithm.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
686
I was told that continuity of f is key here, but I'm not positive.
That's the key. Try comparing ##\lim_{x \to 0} f(g(x))## against ##f(\lim_{x \to 0} g(x))## with ##g(x)=x## and ##f(x)=0\,\forall\,x\ne 0,\, f(0)=1##.
 
  • #3
Thanks for the specific example.

Can you prove (or point me to the proof) of the general case?
 
  • #4
269
24
That's one very reasonable definition of continuity.
 
  • #5
828
2
Thanks for the specific example.

Can you prove (or point me to the proof) of the general case?

If you are using the [itex]\epsilon - \delta[/itex] definition of continuity, then the idea is that eventually [itex]x_n[/itex] will be within to [itex]x[/itex] and so [itex]f(x_n)[/itex] will be withi in [itex]\epsilon[/itex] of [itex]f(x)[/itex]. But this is exactly what it means for [itex]f(x_n)[/itex] to converge to [itex]f(x)[/itex].
 
  • #6
If you are using the [itex]\epsilon - \delta[/itex] definition of continuity, then the idea is that eventually [itex]x_n[/itex] will be within to [itex]x[/itex] and so [itex]f(x_n)[/itex] will be withi in [itex]\epsilon[/itex] of [itex]f(x)[/itex]. But this is exactly what it means for [itex]f(x_n)[/itex] to converge to [itex]f(x)[/itex].

What exactly do you mean by the sequence [itex]x_n[/itex] here?
 
  • #7
That's one very reasonable definition of continuity.

Interesting. But how would you show that this definition is equivalent to, for example, the epsilon-delta definition?
 
  • #8
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,429
513
If [tex] \lim_{x\to a} g(x) [/tex] exists, and f(x) is continuous, then the statement is true. If [tex]\lim_{x\to a} g(x)[/tex] does not exist, then the right hand side does not make sense as written, so the statement cannot be true, and if f(x) is not continuous then the statement is not true by DH's example.

As for showing that [tex]\lim_{x\to a} g(x) = L[/tex] implies that [tex] \lim_{x\to a} f(g(x)) = L[/tex] when L is continuous, you should just slam it with epsilons and deltas until it works - I don't think there's a particularly clever trick
 
  • #9
jbunniii
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,473
255
Interesting. But how would you show that this definition is equivalent to, for example, the epsilon-delta definition?
Suppose that ##f## is continuous at ##x## in the epsilon-delta sense. Let ##\epsilon > 0##. Then there is a ##\delta > 0## such that ##|f(y) - f(x)| < \epsilon## for all ##y## satisfying ##|y - x| < \delta##. Let ##(x_n)## be a sequence converging to ##x##. Then there is an ##N## such that ##|x_n - x| < \delta## for all ##n > N##. Thus for all ##n > N## we have ##|f(x_n) - f(x)| < \epsilon##. We can do this for any ##\epsilon > 0##, so this means that ##f(x_n) \rightarrow f(x)##.

Conversely, suppose that ##f(x_n) \rightarrow f(x)## for any sequence ##(x_n)## such that ##x_n \rightarrow x##. Let ##\epsilon > 0##. We claim that there is a ##\delta > 0## such that ##|f(y) - f(x)| < \epsilon## whenever ##|y - x| < \delta##. Suppose this were not the case. Then it must be true that for every ##\delta > 0##, there is some ##y## satisfying ##|y - x| < \delta## but ##|f(y) - f(x)| \geq \epsilon##. Let ##(\delta_n)## be any sequence of positive numbers converging to zero. Then we can find a sequence ##(x_n)## satisfying ##|x_n - x| < \delta_n## and ##|f(x_n) - f(x)| \geq \epsilon##. The conditions ##|x_n - x| < \delta_n## and ##\delta_n \rightarrow 0## imply that ##x_n \rightarrow x##, so our hypothesis implies that ##f(x_n) \rightarrow f(x)##. But this contradicts ##|f(x_n) - f(x)| \geq \epsilon##.
 
  • #10
Suppose that ##f## is continuous at ##x## in the epsilon-delta sense. Let ##\epsilon > 0##. Then there is a ##\delta > 0## such that ##|f(y) - f(x)| < \epsilon## for all ##y## satisfying ##|y - x| < \delta##. Let ##(x_n)## be a sequence converging to ##x##. Then there is an ##N## such that ##|x_n - x| < \delta## for all ##n > N##. Thus for all ##n > N## we have ##|f(x_n) - f(x)| < \epsilon##. We can do this for any ##\epsilon > 0##, so this means that ##f(x_n) \rightarrow f(x)##.

Conversely, suppose that ##f(x_n) \rightarrow f(x)## for any sequence ##(x_n)## such that ##x_n \rightarrow x##. Let ##\epsilon > 0##. We claim that there is a ##\delta > 0## such that ##|f(y) - f(x)| < \epsilon## whenever ##|y - x| < \delta##. Suppose this were not the case. Then it must be true that for every ##\delta > 0##, there is some ##y## satisfying ##|y - x| < \delta## but ##|f(y) - f(x)| \geq \epsilon##. Let ##(\delta_n)## be any sequence of positive numbers converging to zero. Then we can find a sequence ##(x_n)## satisfying ##|x_n - x| < \delta_n## and ##|f(x_n) - f(x)| \geq \epsilon##. The conditions ##|x_n - x| < \delta_n## and ##\delta_n \rightarrow 0## imply that ##x_n \rightarrow x##, so our hypothesis implies that ##f(x_n) \rightarrow f(x)##. But this contradicts ##|f(x_n) - f(x)| \geq \epsilon##.

Ahh... Thank you for the detailed proof! I was able to use the ideas from your proof to prove the result in my original post (basically the exact same proof, but mine involved a function ##g(x)##, whereas yours involved the sequence ##\{x_n\}##)

Anyway, thanks again! And thanks to everyone else :)
 

Related Threads on Moving limits in and out of functions

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
Top