1000/1000
Hot
Most Recent
There is no comment~
More
In calculus, the (ε, δ)-definition of limit ("epsilon–delta definition of limit") is a formalization of the notion of limit. The concept is due to Augustin-Louis Cauchy, who never gave a formal (ε, δ) definition of limit in his Cours d'Analyse, but occasionally used ε, δ arguments in proofs. It was first given as a formal definition by Bernard Bolzano in 1817, and the definitive modern statement was ultimately provided by Karl Weierstrass. It provides rigor to the following informal notion: the dependent expression f(x) approaches the value L as the variable x approaches the value c if f(x) can be made as close as desired to L by taking x sufficiently close to c.
Although the Greeks examined limiting processes, such as the Babylonian method, they probably had no concept similar to the modern limit.[1] The need for the concept of a limit arose in the 1600s, when Pierre de Fermat attempted to find the slope of the tangent line at a point
The key to the above calculation is that since
This problem reappeared later in the 1600s at the center of the development of calculus, where calculations such as Fermat's are important to the calculation of derivatives. Isaac Newton first developed calculus via an infinitesimal quantity called a fluxion. He developed them in reference to the idea of an "infinitely small moment in time..."[4] However, Newton later rejected fluxions in favor of a theory of ratios that is close to the modern
Additionally, Newton occasionally explained limits in terms similar to the epsilon–delta definition.[5] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz developed an infinitesimal of his own and tried to provide it with a rigorous footing, but it was still greeted with unease by some mathematicians and philosophers.[4]
Augustin-Louis Cauchy gave a definition of limit in terms of a more primitive notion he called a variable quantity. He never gave an epsilon–delta definition of limit (Grabiner 1981). Some of Cauchy's proofs contain indications of the epsilon–delta method. Whether or not his foundational approach can be considered a harbinger of Weierstrass's is a subject of scholarly dispute. Grabiner feels that it is, while Schubring (2005) disagrees.[6] Nakane concludes that Cauchy and Weierstrass gave the same name to different notions of limit.[7]
Eventually, Weierstrass and Bolzano are credited with providing a rigorous footing for calculus, in the form of the modern
This is not to say that the limiting definition was free of problems as, although it removed the need for infinitesimals, it did require the construction of the real numbers by Richard Dedekind.[4] This is also not to say that infinitesimals have no place in modern mathematics, as later mathematicians were able to rigorously create infinitesimal quantities as part of the hyperreal number or surreal number systems. Moreover, it is possible to rigorously develop calculus with these quantities and they have other mathematical uses.[9]
A viable informal (that is, intuitive or provisional) definition is that a "function f approaches the limit L near a (symbolically,
When we say that two things are close (such as f(x) and L or x and a), we mean that the difference (or distance) between them is small. When f(x), L, x, and a are real numbers, the difference/distance between two numbers is the absolute value of the difference of the two. Thus, when we say f(x) is close to L, we mean that |f(x) − L| is small. When we say that x and a are close, we mean that |x − a| is small.[11]
When we say that we can make f(x) as close as we like to L, we mean that for all non-zero distances, ε, we can make the distance between f(x) and L smaller than ε.[11]
When we say that we can make f(x) as close as we like to L by requiring that x be sufficiently close to, but, unequal to, a, we mean that for every non-zero distance ε, there is some non-zero distance δ such that if the distance between x and a is less than δ then the distance between f(x) and L is smaller than ε.[11]
The informal/intuitive aspect to be grasped here is that the definition requires the following internal conversation (which is typically paraphrased by such language as "your enemy/adversary attacks you with an ε, and you defend/protect yourself with a δ"): One is provided with any challenge ε > 0 for a given f, a, and L. One must answer with a δ > 0 such that 0 < |x − a| < δ implies that |f(x) − L| < ε. If one can provide an answer for any challenge, then one has proven that the limit exists.[12]
The
Let
if for every
Symbolically:
If
The definition can be generalized to functions that map between metric spaces. These spaces come with a function, called a metric, that takes two points in the space and returns a real number that represents the distance between the two points.[14] The generalized definition is as follows:[15]
Suppose
We say that
if for every
Since
The logical negation of the definition is as follows:[17]
Suppose
We say that
if there exists an
We say that
For the negation of a real valued function defined on the real numbers, simply set
The precise statement for limits at infinity is as follows:
Suppose
if for every
It is also possible to give a definition in general metric spaces.
The standard
and the limit "from the left" as
We will show that
We let
Since sine is bounded above by 1 and below by −1,
Thus, if we take
Let us prove the statement that
for any real number
Let
We start by factoring:
We recognize that
So we suppose
Thus,
Thus via the triangle inequality,
Thus, if we further suppose that
then
In summary, we set
So, if
Thus, we have found a
for any real number
Let us prove the statement that
This is easily shown through graphical understandings of the limit, and as such serves as a strong basis for introduction to proof. According to the formal definition above, a limit statement is correct if and only if confining
to
Simplifying, factoring, and dividing 3 on the right hand side of the implication yields
which immediately gives the required result if we choose
Thus the proof is completed. The key to the proof lies in the ability of one to choose boundaries in
A function f is said to be continuous at c if it is both defined at c and its value at c equals the limit of f as x approaches c:
The
A function f is said to be continuous on an interval I if it is continuous at every point c of I.
Keisler proved that a hyperreal definition of limit reduces the logical quantifier complexity by two quantifiers.[20] Namely,
Infinitesimal calculus textbooks based on Robinson's approach provide definitions of continuity, derivative, and integral at standard points in terms of infinitesimals. Once notions such as continuity have been thoroughly explained via the approach using microcontinuity, the epsilon–delta approach is presented as well. Karel Hrbáček argues that the definitions of continuity, derivative, and integration in Robinson-style non-standard analysis must be grounded in the ε–δ method, in order to cover also non-standard values of the input.[21] Błaszczyk et al. argue that microcontinuity is useful in developing a transparent definition of uniform continuity, and characterize the criticism by Hrbáček as a "dubious lament".[22] Hrbáček proposes an alternative non-standard analysis, which (unlike Robinson's) has many "levels" of infinitesimals, so that limits at one level can be defined in terms of infinitesimals at the next level.[23]
There is not a single definition of limit - there is a whole family of definitions. This is due to the presence of infinity, and the concept of limits "from the right" and "from the left". The limit itself can be a finite value,