We now have to make precise, mathematical sense out of the statement
Recall the informal definition:
Definition 1 We say lim x® a f(x) = L if we can make f(x) as close as we need to L , just by taking x close enough to a .
In order to make that precise, we need first to figure out how to quantify how close f(x) is to L . The distance between them is |f(x)-L| . So, how close do we need it? Say within e, which is some positive number. (All calculus texts always use the letter e for this.) So, we need to be able to arrange |f(x)-L| < e, just by taking x close enough to a . The distance from x to a is |x-a| . Close enough should be some (small) positive distance d. So, the definition above becomes:
Definition 2 Let f(x) be defined in a neighborhood of a , except perhaps at a itself. That is, assume for some c < a and b > a , f is defined on the intervals (c,a) and (a,b) . Then, we say that lim x® a f(x) = L if, for every e > 0 , there is a d > 0 so that, if 0 < |x-a| < d, then |f(x)-L| < e.
Note 4 Notice how I snuck that 0 < |x-a| in there. That just means that x ¹ a . Remember, in limits we don't care how, or if, f(a) is defined, we want to know what f(x) is tending towards as x® a . We want to know how f(a) should be defined.
One-sided limits are handled the same way, except that 0 < |x-a| < d is replaced by a < x < a+d for the right-hand limit
To begin with, recall the informal definition of the situation
Now. let's make it precise. How large do you want me to make f(x) ? It would be some number, E . I have to make f(x) larger than that, at least. But, I'm only allowed to do that by taking x large enough, say x > D . If the limit
is true, I have to be able to do this, no matter what. Here goes:
Definition 5 Assume that, for some number c , f(x) is defined for all x > c . Then, we say that lim x® ¥ f(x) = ¥ if, for each number E , there is a number D so that, if x > D , then f(x) > E .
A more subtle case is the informal statement of the condition that
Assume that, for some number c , f(x) is defined for all x > c . Then, we say that
Definition 6 A function f(x) has an infinite limit as x approaches a (or has a vertical asymptote at x = a ), lim x® a f(x) = ¥, if, for each E > 0 , there is a d > 0 so that whenever 0 < |x-a| < d, |f(x)| > E .
You can figure out what the analogue would be for one-sided limits, or for limits going specifically to +¥, -¥, or both ways, ±¥. Of course, this last case is really the same as the definition we just gave.
Example 1 Show that lim x® 1 3x+5 = 8. Solution
Example 2 Show that lim x® 2 x2+3x = 10. Solution
Example 3 Show that lim x® 3 1x = 13 . Hints
Example 4 Show that lim x® ¥ Öx = ¥. Solution
Example 5 Show that lim x® ¥ 2x+3x-1 = 2. Hints
Exercise 1 Find a number d sufficiently small so that the distance from f(x) = 2x2+3x-1 to 4 is less than 1/100 if |x-1| < d. d = Exercise 2 Show that lim x® ¥ (x/2+sinx) = ¥.
Exercise 3 Show that lim x® ¥ x2+3x+2x2-1 = 2.
Email Address (Required to submit answers):
Copyright (c) 2000 by David L. Johnson. File translated from TEX by TTH, version 2.61.On 17 Oct 2000, 22:15.
Copyright (c) 2000 by David L. Johnson.