Understanding Limit Definition and the Role of Inequalities in Calculus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yoni V
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Limit
Yoni V
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


It is not exactly a homework question, but why does the definition of a limit use strict inequalities as follows:
if 0 < |x - a| < δ, then |f(x) - l| < ε
rather than weak inequalities, for example
if 0 < |x - a| < δ, then |f(x) - l| ≤ ε

Could the addition of the equality option make a difference?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried thinking of functions that would yield different limits to the limit produced by the formal definition, but couldn't find any.
I also tried to rule it out somehow with formal deduction, but couldn't.
Any hints or ideas?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, I realized that the fact I couldn't disprove it is because it indeed holds.
It might not be as nice to be the definition, but given the definition,
if 0 < |x - a| < δ, then |f(x) - l| ≤ ε
implies that the limit of f is l.
 
We proved early in our analysis course as a "recreational" activity that the two are, in fact, equivalent statements, but we just agreed to use the strict inequality.
 
It's obvious that if ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=l## in the sense of the standard definition, then ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=l## in the sense of the alternative definition.

Suppose that ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=l## in the sense of the alternative definition. Let ##\varepsilon>0##. Let ##\delta>0## be such that the following implication holds for all ##x\in\mathbb R##,
$$0<|x-a|<\delta~\Rightarrow~|f(x)-l| <\frac\varepsilon 2.$$ (Our assumption ensures that such a ##\delta## exists). For all ##x\in\mathbb R## such that ##0<|x-a|<\delta##, we have ##|f(x)-l|<\frac\varepsilon 2<\varepsilon##. This implies that ##\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=l## in the sense of the standard definition.
 
Thanks for your responses.
Could you refer me to the analysis course you mentioned?

Edit: Oh, I guess you meant a course you took elsewhere, not some section here in PF. Nvm...
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top