Proving limit theorems when limit tends to infinity

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Alpharup
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity Limit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions and properties of limits, particularly as they approach infinity. Participants explore the consistency of various limit definitions and their implications for proving limit theorems, focusing on the epsilon-delta framework and its relationship with sequences and series.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Spivak's definitions of limits as they approach a point and infinity, expressing dissatisfaction with the argument that these definitions consistently follow all properties.
  • Another participant suggests that knowledge of sequences and series is necessary for proving properties of limits related to those concepts, while epsilon/delta proofs can stand alone.
  • Several participants emphasize a need for proofs using only the epsilon/delta definitions of limits.
  • There is a discussion about the different definitions of limits and how epsilon and delta are used in some but not all definitions, with one participant noting that some definitions do not involve either term.
  • One participant questions whether limit properties can still be proven despite the differences in definitions, leading to clarification that the definitions can be used for proofs with certain restrictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of sequences and series for proving limit properties, and there is no consensus on the sufficiency of epsilon/delta definitions alone for all limit proofs.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the varying definitions of limits and the specific conditions under which properties like multiplication and division can be proven, particularly concerning indeterminate forms.

Alpharup
Messages
226
Reaction score
17
Am using Spivak and he defines limit of a function f
1. As it approaches a point a.
2.As it approaches infinity.
He also defines limit f(x)=∞
x->a

But though in solving exercises, we can see that all the three definitions are consistent with each other, I am not satisfied by the argument that these specially defined limits follow all the property like;
Let lim f(x)=m and lim g(x)=n, then to prove lim f(x)*g(x)= m*n...
x->∞ x->∞ x->∞
Let lim f(x)=m here m is not equal to 0, then to prove lim ( 1/f(x))=(1/m)
x->∞ x→∞In some calculus(like Kuratowski) and analysis books, I could see that they first talk about series, convergence, divergence and so on...Then they talk about epsilon-delta definition of limit and show that this definition is consistent with the one obtained through sequence and series. So, is learning sequences and series(and some concepts like bounded sequence) necessary for proving such and such theorems?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on what you want to prove. If you want to prove properties of a limit for sequences and series, you have to know something about them of course. If you want to study everything with epsilon/delta only, you don't need sequences or series.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alpharup
I mainly need the proof for epsilon/delta only...
 
Alpharup said:
I mainly need the proof for epsilon/delta only...
How do you know?
 
Alpharup said:
I mainly need the proof for epsilon/delta only...
The definitions for limits are different for ##\lim_{x \to a}f(x) = L##, ##\lim_{x \to \infty}f(x) = L##,##\lim_{x \to a}f(x) = \infty##, and ##\lim_{x \to \infty}f(x) = \infty##.
Both ##\epsilon## and ##\delta## appear in the definition of the first limit, ##\delta## (but not ##\epsilon##) appears in the third type, and ##\epsilon## (but not ##\delta##) appears in the second type. Neither one appears in the fourth limit type.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alpharup
So, do you mean to say that, we can still prove the limit properties(multiplication,division) because all the four definitions involve just slight modification of epsilon and delta?
 
Alpharup said:
So, do you mean to say that, we can still prove the limit properties(multiplication,division) because all the four definitions involve just slight modification of epsilon and delta?
What I described is not a slight modification of epsilon and delta. In the definitions of these kinds of limits, some of them don't use epsilon or delta (or both) at all. Your book should show each of these limit definitions.

The definitions can be used to prove the multiplication and division properties, but with the usual restrictions. Namely, they shouldn't be any of the indeterminate forms, such as ##[\frac 0 0]##, ##[\frac {\infty}{\infty}]##, or ##[0 \cdot \infty]##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alpharup
Thank you...got it
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K