Why the definition of limit is often written

In summary, the definition of limit in real numbers and real analysis is based on the idea that there is a point where the function is undefined and that the limit is the point where the function is defined.
  • #1
Why the definition of limit is often written in this form also it can be more easy ?
in Real numbers and Real Analysis by Ethan.D.Bloch : writes the definition :
let I[itex]\subseteq [/itex]ℝ be an open interval ,c [itex]\in[/itex]I , let f:I-{c} → ℝ be a function and let L[itex]\in[/itex]ℝ , L is the limit of f as x goes to c ,

if for any ε>0 , there exists δ>0 such that x [itex]\in[/itex] I-{c} and |x-c| < δ imply |f(x)-L| < ε

some questions concerned here , why he don't write instead of the Bold part this simply

0<|x-c| < δ imply |f(x)-L| < ε

in the first definition does the inequality mean that there is some x satisfy it such that x [itex]\notin[/itex] I ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You can write both things. They are equivalent. I have personally always worked with the second definition (i.e. the one with 0<|x-a|<δ ). But either one is good.
 
  • #3
Can I prove that the two definitions are equivalent.
And please what about the second question ?
 
  • #4
Supose we are talking about the "space" of all functions on the the interval [0,1]. Do we want [itex] lim_{x \rightarrow 0}f(x) [/itex] to fail to exist just because the set [itex] \{x:0 < |x-0|< d \} [/itex] contains points where [itex] f [/itex] is undefined? If you define the topology of [itex] [0,1] [/itex] so that [itex] [1,\delta) [/itex] is an open set, then Bloch's definition allows the limit to exist.

If you use the usual definition of "open set" (as defined on the whole real number line) then the definitions are equivalent.

As I recall, Johnson and Kiokemeister 4th edition gave a definition of limit that was based on topology. They said something like:

"The limit of f(x) as x approaches a is equal to L" means that for each open interval R containing L there is an open interval D containing a such that f(D-{a}) is a subset of R.

However, as I stated this definition, if looks like a failure of f to be defined at various points in D would not prevent the limit from existing. I don't know whether J&K's exact wording prevented that.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Sorry , But I haven't studied topology yet , I am a self learner , also , I have Munkres' Topology , But I didn't read it , Because I still study some set theory , so please I don't want term Topology .
 

Suggested for: Why the definition of limit is often written

Replies
1
Views
653
Replies
11
Views
873
Replies
6
Views
916
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
971
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
614
Replies
15
Views
1K
Back
Top