Why Can We Take Limits of Both Sides? [Answered]

Click For Summary
Taking limits of both sides of an equation or inequality is valid because if two quantities are equal, their limits must also be equal. This principle applies to inequalities as well, allowing for the manipulation of expressions as long as the conditions of the limits are respected. When dividing by a positive value, such as -h when h > 0, the direction of the inequality remains unchanged, facilitating the limit definition of the derivative. The discussion emphasizes the importance of ensuring that limits are taken correctly, especially in cases where the function values approach a boundary. Ultimately, the ability to take limits on both sides is crucial for deriving conclusions about function behavior at specific points.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this,
1683677774717.png

Does someone please know why we are allowed to take limits of both side [boxed in orange]?

Also for the thing boxed in pink, could we not divide by -h if ##h > 0##?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
Does someone please know
Yay!!!!
ChiralSuperfields said:
Does someone please know why we are allowed to take limits of both side [boxed in orange]?
If you have two expressions making up an equation or an inequality, you can take the limit of both sides. IOW, if two quantities are equal, their limits will be equal. Same holds for inequalities.
ChiralSuperfields said:
Also for the thing boxed in pink, could we not divide by -h if h>0?
The limit definition of the derivative (really, one such definition) has h in the denominator.

I'm guessing that there is some text that comes before what you have in the screen shot, something like ##f(c + h) - f(c) \le 0##.
The goal is to get the left side in the form of the limit definition of the derivative, so they first divide both sides by h, which is assumed to be positive. Thus, the direction of the inequality doesn't change. After taking the limit, they conclude that ##f'(c) \le 0##.

The rest of the work is to show that ##f'(c) \ge 0##, with a final conclusion that f'(c) = 0.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
It is indeed a bit tricky. For example if ##3-h=2.999999999 = f(1-h) < 3## as in one of your previous examples, we could and in the example would get ##\lim_{h\to 0}f(1-h)=3.## So all that can happen is, that the limit exists on the boundary: the function values are all smaller than three and the limit is equal to three. But this is all that could happen.

We have ##\dfrac{f(c+h)-f(c)}{h}\leq 0.## Imagine that ##0## be a wall and all points ##\dfrac{f(c+h)-f(c)}{h}## are on the left of this wall. You can get closer and closer to the wall, arbitrarily close by taking the limit, but you will always be left of it or at it; same as ##2.99999999\ldots## will always be smaller than ##3,## and in the limit equal to ##3.##

If there would be a gap, say ##\lim_{h\to 0} g(h)= C+1## and ##g(h)\leq C## for all ##h,## then remember what a limit is. A limit has in every how ever small neighborhood always an element of the sequence that converges to this limit. Therefore, there must be some ##h_0## such that ##|g(h_0)-(C+1)|< 1/3.## Now, show that such a point ##h_0## cannot exist, if ##g(h_0)<C.##
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker, member 731016 and berkeman
It's important that the step where limits are taken on both sides includes the '=' case, like:
if ##g(x) \lt f(x)##, then ##lim_{x \rightarrow a} g(x) \le lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x)##.
The example you give does include the possibility that the limits are equal, so it is valid.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and member 731016

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
Replies
32
Views
3K