2.

4 Lecture Notes
Brody Lynch
September 5, 2024

1 Formal Definition of a Limit

We have so far been doing well computing with the intuitive definition of a limit, but it is
important to know that it can be defined more formally. We will not spend that much time
using the formal definition of the limit to compute limits, but the formal definition allows us
to prove that we can use all of the limit laws in the previous section, which we will continue
to use to compute limits.

Definition 1.1 (Formal definition of a limit). Let f be a function that is defined on an open
interval around some number a except possibly at a itself. Then write lim f (x) = L and say
x→a

“the limit of f as x approaches a equals L”, if for every ϵ > 0, there exists a δ > 0 such that

if |x − a| < δ, then |f (x) − L| ≤ ϵ.

Using the formal definition to find what the limit is has a specific argument structure.
Someone hands you an ϵ, and you have to give them the δ that satisfies the condition. No
matter which ϵ they pick, you must be able to find a corresponding δ. Practically, this means
that we often compute the necessary δ in terms of ϵ.

1
Example 1.2. Use the definition of the limit to show that lim f (x) does not exists for
x→0



5 x ≥ 0

f (x) =

1 x < 0


Let ϵ = 1. For any L, there does not exist a δ such that if |x − 0| < δ, then |f (x) − L| < ϵ.
This is because for any δ > 0, there is some x such that 0 < x < δ. For this x, x − δ and
x are both in the interval (−δ, δ) but x − δ < 0 so f (x − δ) = 1 and x > 0 so f (x) = 5.
Since 5 − ϵ > 1 and 1 + ϵ < 5, this means that there is no such δ and L that will satisfy the
definition of the limit for ϵ = 1.
More intuitively, picking L = 5, L = 1, and L = 3 all can be shown to be invalid, and
these are plausibly the “best” choices for the limit.

Example 1.3. Use the definition of the limit to prove that lim 3x − 1 = 5.
x→2

We know this fact to be true using the limit laws of section 2.3, but now let us prove it
formally. Let ϵ > 0 be arbitrary. Our goal is to find a corresponding δ.
Let us start with what are trying to show and work backwards to get an idea of what δ
should be.

|f (x) − 5| < ϵ =⇒ |(3x − 1) − 5| < ϵ

=⇒ |3x − 6| < ϵ

=⇒ 3|x − 2| < ϵ
ϵ
=⇒ |x − 2| < .
3

This is not quite a proof, because it is in the wrong direction, but we can use it to make

2
a guess that δ = 13 ϵ will work. Using this, we can prove that

|x − 2| < δ =⇒ 3|x − 2| < 3δ

=⇒ |3x − 6| < 3δ

=⇒ |(3x − 1) − 5| < 3δ

=⇒ |f (x) − 5| < ϵ.

Remark 1.4. In this case, our function is a line. Therefore, there is a constant ratio of the
change in y to the change in x. This ratio is the slope, which in this case is 3. Therefore,
y changes 3 times faster than x so if we make an x interval smaller, the corresponding y
1
interval will shrink 3 times as fast. It is not a coincidence that 3
is the correct choice for δ.

Example 1.5. Use the definition of the limit to compute lim −2x + 5. Groups!
x→1

To make our computation simpler this time, we note that the logic can flow in both
directions, so we use dual implication arrows. We also can use limit laws to guess that the
limit is 3.

|f (x) − 3| < ϵ ⇐⇒ |(−2x + 5) − 3| < ϵ

⇐⇒ | − 2x + 2| < ϵ
ϵ
⇐⇒ |x − 1| < .
2

ϵ
Therefore, we can always let δ = 2
and then working backward through the string of logical
equalities gives the desired result.

3
2 One-sided limits

Definition 2.1 (Formal definition of a left-side limit). Let f be a function that is defined
on an open interval with left endpoint a. Then write lim− f (x) = L and say “the limit of f
x→a
as x approaches a from the left equals L”, if for every ϵ > 0, there exists a δ > 0 such that

if a − δ < x < a, then |f (x) − L| ≤ ϵ.

Definition 2.2 (Formal definition of a right-side limit). Let f be a function that is defined
on an open interval with right endpoint a. Then write lim+ f (x) = L and say “the limit of
x→a
f as x approaches a from the right equals L”, if for every ϵ > 0, there exists a δ > 0 such
that
if a < x < a + δ, then |f (x) − L| ≤ ϵ.

Example 2.3. Find the left and right-hand limits as x approaches 0 of f (x) for


x + 5 x ≥ 0

f (x) =

x + 1 x < 0


We claim that the left-hand limit is 1 and the right-hand limit is 5. We will show the
left-hand argument. The right hand argument is similar.

4
 Let ϵ > 0, and δ = ϵ, then for x < 0,

|f (x) − L| < ϵ ⇐⇒ |x + 1 − 1| < ϵ

⇐⇒ |x| < ϵ

⇐⇒ −ϵ < x < ϵ

⇐⇒ 0 − δ < x < 0

3 Infinite Limits

Definition 3.1. Let f be a function defined on some open interval that contains the number
a, except possibly at a itself. Then we write

lim f (x) = ∞
x→a

and say “the limit of f (x) as x approaches a is infinity” if for every positive M , there exists
a δ such that
if |x − a| < δ, then f (x) > M.

Remark 3.2. We could use a similar definition for limits going to negative infinity.

1
Example 3.3. Use the definition to prove that lim = ∞.
x→0 x2

Let M > 0 be arbitrary. Using similar logic as before,

1
f (x) > M ⇐⇒ >M
x2
1
⇐⇒ x2 <
M
r
1
⇐⇒ |x| <
M

5
 q
1
so letting δ = M
, we have proved the limit is infinite.

4 The Limit Laws

The limit laws can all be rigorously proved using the formal definition of the limit. These
proofs are annoyingly technical, but we only have to do them once. After that, we can
use the limit laws instead of going all the way back to the definition whenever we have to
calculate a limit. This is the idea of “strategic laziness” that I mentioned previously in class.
We will prove the addition law here. The rest of the proofs can be found in an appendix of
your textbook. You are not expected to know or memorize the details of this proof.

Theorem 4.1 (Addition Law). If lim f (x) = L and lim = M , then lim f (x)+g(x) = L+M .
x→a x→a x→a

In order to prove this, we need the following fact.

Theorem 4.2 (Triangle Inequality). Let a, b ∈ R, then |a + b| ≤ |a| + |b|.

Proof of Addition Law. Assume that lim f (x) = L and lim = M . We want to show that
x→a x→a

lim f (x) + g(x) = L + M . To do this, we let ϵ > 0 and try to find a δ such that if |x − a| < δ,
x→a

then |f (x) + g(x) − (L + M )| < ϵ.

Since lim f (x) = L for 2ϵ , there exists a δf such that if |x − a| < δf , then |f (x) − L| <
x→a
ϵ
2
. Similarly, since lim g(x) = M for 2ϵ , there exists a δg such that if |x − a| < δg , then
x→a
ϵ
|g(x) − M | < 2
. Let δ = min(δf , δg ). Then if |x − a| < δ, we know that |x − a| < δf and
|x − a| < δg , so we get a string of inequalities

ϵ ϵ
|f (x) + g(x) − (L + M )| = |(f (x) − L) + (g(x) − M )| ≤ |f (x) − L| + |g(x) − M | < + = ϵ.
2 2

Therfore, lim f (x) + g(x) = L + M .

x→a