WEEK 5 THE PRECISE DEFINITION OF A LIMIT

By now you have progressed from the very informal definition of a limit in the introduction of this chapter to the
intuitive understanding of a limit. At this point, you should have a very strong intuitive sense of what the limit of a
function means and how you can find it. In this section, we convert this intuitive idea of a limit into a formal definition
using precise mathematical language. The formal definition of a limit is quite possibly one of the most challenging
definitions you will encounter early in your study of calculus; however, it is well worth any effort you make to
reconcile it with your intuitive notion of a limit. Understanding this definition is the key that opens the door to a
better understanding of calculus.

TOPIC 1: Quantifying Closeness

Before stating the formal definition of a limit, we must introduce a few preliminary ideas. Recall that the distance
between two points a and b on a number line is given by |a−b|.

 The statement |f ( x ) −L|<ε may be interpreted as: The distance between f(x) and L is less than ε .
 The statement 0<| x−a|< δ may be interpreted as: x ≠ a and the distance between x and a is less than δ .

It is also important to look at the following equivalences for absolute value:

 The statement |f( x ) −L|<ε is equivalent to the statement L−ε <f ( x ) < L+ε .
 The statement 0<| x−a|< δ is equivalent to the statement a−δ < x< a+δ and x ≠ a .

With these clarifications, we can state the formal epsilon-delta definition of the limit.

Definition: The epsilon-delta definition of the limit

Let f(x) be defined for all x ≠ a over an open interval containing a. Let L be a real number. Then

lim f ( x )=L (5.1)

x→ a

if, for every ε > 0, there exist a δ >0 , such that if 0<| x−a|< δ , then |f ( x ) −L|<ε .

This definition may seem rather complex from a mathematical point of view, but it becomes easier to understand if we
break it down phrase by phrase. The statement itself involves something called a  universal quantifier (for every ε >
0), an existential quantifier (there exists δ > 0), and, last, a conditional statement ( if 0<|x−a|<δ ,then |f ( x )−L|)
. Let’s take a look at Table, which breaks down the definition and translates each part.

We can get a better handle on this definition by looking at the definition geometrically. Figure shows possible values
of δδ for various choices of ε > 0 for a given function f(x), a number a, and a limit L at a. Notice that as we choose
smaller values of ε (the distance between the function and the limit), we can always find a  δ small enough so that if we
have chosen an x value within δ of a, then the value of f(x) is within ε of the limit L.
 Figure 1: These graphs show possible values of δ , given successively smaller choice of ε .

EXAMPLE 1: Proving a Statement about the Limit of a Specific Function

Prove that lim ( 2 x +1 )=3.

x →1

SOLUTION

Let ε > 0.

The first part of the definition begins “For every ε > 0.” This means we must prove that whatever follows
is true no matter what positive value of ε is chosen. By stating:

“Let ε>0,” we signal our intent to do so.

Choose δ = ε/2.

The definition continues with “there exists a δ > 0. ” The phrase “there exists” in a mathematical
statement is always a signal for a scavenger hunt. In other words, we must go and find  δ. So, where
exactly did δ = ε/2 come from? There are two basic approaches to tracking down δ. One method is purely
algebraic and the other is geometric.

We begin by tackling the problem from an algebraic point of view. Since ultimately we want |(2x+1)−3|
<ε, we begin by manipulating this expression: |(2x+1)−3|< ε is equivalent to |2x−2| < ε, which in turn is
equivalent to |2||x−1| < ε. Last, this is equivalent to |x−1| < ε/2. Thus, it would seem that δ = ε/2 is
appropriate.

We may also find δ through geometric methods. Figure demonstrates how this is done.
 Figure 5.2: This graph shows how we find δ geometrically

Assume 0 < |x−1| < δ. When δ has been chosen, our goal is to show that if 0 < |x−1| < δ, then |(2x+1)−3|
<ε. To prove any statement of the form “If this, then that,” we begin by assuming “this” and trying to get
“that.”

Thus
|( 2 x+ 1 )−3|=|2 x−2| property of absolute value
¿|2(x−1)|
¿|2||x−1||2|=2
¿ 2|x−1|<2 ∙ δ her e ' s where we use the assumptionthat ( 0<|x−1|<δ )
ε '
¿ 2 ∙ =ε her e s where we use our choice of δ=ε /2
2

Analysis

In this part of the proof, we started with |( 2 x+ 1 )−3| and used our assumption 0<|x−1|<δ in a key part of the
|( 2 x+ 1 )−3| to be less than ε . We could just as easily have manipulated the assumed
chain of inequalities to get
inequality 0<| x−1|<δ to arrive at |( 2 x+ 1 )−3|< ε as follows:

Therefore, lim ( 2 x +1 )=3. (Having completed the proof, we state what we have accomplished)
x →1
After removing all the remarks, here is a final version of the proof:

Let ε > 0.

Choose δ=ε/2

Assume 0<| x−1|<δ

Thus,

Therefore, lim ( 2 x +1 )=3.

x →1

The following Problem-Solving Strategy summarizes the type of proof we worked out in Example.

Problem-Solving Strategy: Proving that lim f ( x )=L for a Specific Function f ( x)

x→ a

1. Let’s begin the proof with the following statement: Let ε > 0.
2. Next, we need to obtain a value for δ . As we obtained this value, we make the following statement, filling in
the blank with our choice of δ : Choose δ=¿ .
3. The next statement for the proof should be (at this point, we fill in our given value for a): Assume
0<| x−a|< δ .
4. Next, based on this assumption, we need to show that |f ( x ) −L|<ε , where f(x) and our limit L. At some
point, we need to use 0<| x−a|< δ .
5. We conclude our proof of statement: therefore, lim f ( x )=L .
x→ a

EXAMPLE 2: Proving a Statement about a Limit

Complete the proof that lim ( 4 x +1 )=−3 by filling∈the blanks.

x→−1

SOLUTION
EXAMPLE 3: Proving a Statement about the Limit of a Specific Function (Geometric Approach)

2
Prove that lim x =4.
x →2

SOLUTION

1. Let ε > 0. The first part of the definition begins “For every ε > 0,” so we must prove that
whatever follows is true no matter what positive value of ε is chosen. By stating “Let  ε > 0,” we
signal our intent to do so.
2. Without loss of generality, assume ε ≤ 4. Two questions present themselves: Why do we want ε
≤ 4 and why is it okay to make this assumption? In answer to the first question: Later on, in the
process of solving for δ, we will discover that δ involves the quantity √ 4−ε . Consequently, we
need ε ≤ 4. In answer to the second question: If we can find δ > 0 that “works” for ε ≤ 4, then it
will “work” for any ε > 4 as well. Keep in mind that, although it is always okay to put an upper
bound on ε, it is never okay to put a lower bound (other than zero) on ε.
3. Choose δ=min {2−√ 4−ε , √ 4−ε−2 } . Figure shows how we made this choice of δ .

4. We must show: If 0<| x−2|<δ , then |x 2−4|< ε , so we must begin by assuming

0<| x−2|<δ

We don’t really need 0<| x−2| (in other word x ≠ 2 ¿ for this proof. Since
0<| x−2|<δ ⇒ |x−2|< δ , it is okay to drop 0<| x−2|.
 |x−2|< δ
Hence,
−δ <|x−2|< δ

Recall that δ=min {2−√ 4−ε , √ 4+ ε −2 }. Thus, δ ≥ 2− √ 4−ε and consequently

−( 2−√ 4−ε ) ≤−δ . We also use δ ≤ √ 4 +ε −2 here. We might ask at this point: Why did we
substitute 2− √ 4−ε for δ on the left-hand side of the inequality and √ 4 +ε −2 on the right-
hand side of the inequality? If we look at the Figure, we see that 2− √ 4−ε corresponds to the
distance on the left of 2 on the x-axis and √ 4 +ε −2 corresponds to the distance on the right.
Thus,

−( 2−√ 4−ε ) ≤−δ < x−2< δ ≤ √ 4+ ε−2.

We simplify the expression on the left

−2+ √ 4−ε < x−2< √ 4 +ε −2

Then, we add 2 to all parts of the inequality:

√ 4−ε < x< √ 4+ ε

We square all parts of the inequality. It is okay to do so, since all parts of the inequality are
positive:

2
4−ε < x < 4+ ε
We subtract 4 from all parts of the inequality:

2
−ε < x −4< ε

Last, |x 2−4|< ε
2
5. Therefore,lim x =4
x →2

The geometric approach to proving that the limit of a function takes on a specific value works quite well for some
functions. Also, the insight into the formal definition of the limit that this method provides is invaluable. However, we
may also approach limit proofs from a purely algebraic point of view. In many cases, an algebraic approach may not
only provide us with additional insight into the definition, it may prove to be simpler as well. Furthermore, an
algebraic approach is the primary tool used in proofs of statements about limits. For Example, we take on a purely
algebraic approach.

EXAMPLE 4: Proving a Statement about the Limit of a Specific Function (Algebraic Approach)

Prove that lim ( x −2 x+3 )=6

2

x→−1

SOLUTION

1. Let ε > 0.
2. Choose δ =min {1 , ε /5 } . This choice of δ may appear odd at first glance, but it was obtained by
taking a look at our ultimate desired inequality: |( x 2−2 x +3 )−6|< ε. This inequality is
 ε
equivalent to |x +1|∙|x −3|< ε . At this point, the temptation simply to choose δ= is very
x−3
strong. Unfortunately, our choice of δ must depend on ε only and no other variable. If we can
replace |x−3| by a numerical value, our problem can be resolved. This is the place where
assuming δ ≤ 1 comes into play. The choice of δ ≤ 1 is arbitrary. We could have just as easily
used any other positive number. In some proofs, greater care in this choice may be necessary.
Now, since δ ≤ 1∧| x+1|< δ ≤ 1, we are able to show that |x−3|<5. Consequently,
|x +1|∙|x −3|<|x +1|∙5 . At this point we realize that we also need δ ≤ ε /5. Thus, we choose
δ =min {1 , ε /5 }.
3. Assume 0<| x+1|< δ . Thus,

|x +1|<1∧| x+1|< ε /5
Since |x +1|<1, we may conclude that −1<|x +1|<1. Thus, by subtracting 4 from all parts of
the inequality, we obtain −5< x−3 ←1 . Consequently, |x−3|<5. This gives us

|( x 2−2 x +3 )−6|=|x+1|∙|x−3|< 5ε ∙5=ε

Therefore, lim ( x −2 x+3 )=6

2

x→−1

You will find that, in general, the more complex a function, the more likely it is that the algebraic approach is the
easiest to apply. The algebraic approach is also more useful in proving statements about limits.

TOPIC 2: PROVING THE LIMIT LAWS

The triangle inequality is used as a key point of the proof, so it is important to first review this key property of
absolute value.

Definition

The triangle inequality states that if a and b are any real numbers, then |a+b|≤|a|+|b|.

Proof
We now explore what it means for a limit to exist. The limit lim f ( x ) does not exist if there is no real number L for
x→ a

which lim f (x )=L .Thus, for all real numbers L, lim f (x )≠ L . To understand what this means, we look at each part
x→ a x→ a

of the definition of lim f ( x )=L together with its opposite. A translation of the definition is given in Table.
x→ a

Finally, we may state what it means for a limit not to exist. The limit lim f (x ) does not exist if for every real number
x→ a
L, there exist a real number ε > 0 so that for all δ > 0, there is an x satisfying 0<| x−a|< δ , so that |f ( x ) −L|≥ ε . Let’s
apply this in Example to show that a limit does not exist.

EXAMPLE 5: Showing that a Limit Does Not Exist

|x|
Show that lim does not exist. The graph of f ( x )=| x|/x is shown here:
x →0 x
 SOLUTION

Suppose that L is a candidate for a limit. Choose ε =1/2

1
Let δ >0. Either L ≥0∨L<0. If L ≥ 0 , thenlet x =
2

Thus, |x−0|= |−δ2 −0|= δ2 <δ

And
| |
|−δ2 |−L =|−1−L|=L+1≥ 1> 1 =ε
−δ
2
2

On the other hand, if L < 0, then let x = δ /2. Thus, |δ2 |

|x−0|= −0 = <δ
δ
2

And
| |
|δ2|−L =|1−L|=L+ 1≥ 1> 1 =ε
δ
2
2

|x|
Thus, for any value of L, lim ≠L
x →0 x

TOPIC 3: ONE-SIDED AND INFINITE LIMITS

Just as we first gained an intuitive understanding of limits and then moved on to a more rigorous definition of a limit,
we now revisit one-sided limits. To do this, we modify the epsilon-delta definition of a limit to give formal epsilon-
delta definitions for limits from the right and left at a point. These definitions only require slight modifications from
the definition of the limit. In the definition of the limit from the right, the inequality 0< x−a<δ
replaces 0<| x−a|< δ , which ensures that we only consider values of x that are greater than (to the right of) a.
Similarly, in the definition of the limit from the left, the inequality −δ < x−a< 0 replaces 0<| x−a|< δ , which
ensures that we only consider values of x that are less than (to the left of) a.

Definition

Limit from the Right: Let f(x) be defined over an open interval of the form (a, b) where a < b. Then

lim ¿ (5.2)
x→ a+¿ f (x)= L¿

If for every ε > 0 , there exist a δ >0, such that if 0< x−a<δ ,then |f ( x )−L|< ε .

Limit from the Left: Let f(x)be defined oven an open interval of the form (b, c) when b < c. Then,

lim ¿ (5.3)
x→ c−¿f (x)= L¿

If for every ε > 0 , there exist a δ >0, such that if −δ < x−c <0 , then|f ( x ) −L|<ε .

EXAMPLE 6: Proving a Statement about a Limit From the Right

Prove that lim ¿.

x→ 4 +¿ √ x−4 =0¿

SOLUTION

Let ε > 0.

Choose δ =ε 2. Since we ultimately want |√ x−4−0|< ε , we manipulate this inequality to get √ x−4 <ε
or, equivalently, 0< x−4< ε 2, making δ =ε 2, a clear choice. We may also determine δ geometrically, as
shown in Figure.

Figure 5.3: This graph shows how we find δ for the proof in Example

Assume 0< x−4< δ . Thus, 0< x−4< ε 2. Hence, 0< √ x−4< ε . Finally, |√ x−4|< ε . Therefore,
lim ¿.
x→ 4 +¿ √ x−4 =0¿