# Untitled Page 14

- Page ID
- 148353

## 3.2 Limits

Historically, the calculus of infinitesimals as created by Newton and Leibniz was reinterpreted
in the nineteenth century by Cauchy, Bolzano, and Weierstrass in terms of limits. All mathematicians
learned both languages, and switched back and forth between them effortlessly, like the lady I
overheard in a Southern California supermarket telling her mother, “Let's get that one, *con los* nuts.”
Those who had been trained in infinitesimals might hear a statement using the language of limits, but
translate it mentally into infinitesimals; to them, every statement about limits was really a statement
about infinitesimals. To their younger colleagues, trained using limits, every statement about infinitesimals
was really to be understood as shorthand for a limiting process. When Robinson laid the rigorous foundations
for the hyperreal number system in the 1960's, a common objection was that it was really nothing new, because
every statement about infinitesimals was really just a different way of expressing a corresponding statement
about limits; of course the same could have been said about Weierstrass's work of the preceding century!
In reality, all practitioners of calculus had realized all along that different approaches worked better for
different problems; problem 13 on page 84 is an example of a result that
is much easier to prove with infinitesimals than with limits.

The Weierstrass definition of a limit is this:

##### Definition of the limit

We say that ℓ is the limit of the function *f*(*x*) as *x* approaches *a*, written

if the following is true: for any real number ε, there exists another real number
δ such that for all *x* in the interval *a*-δ≤ *x* ≤ *a*+δ,
the value of *f* lies within the range from ℓ-ε to ℓ+ε.

Intuitively, the idea is that if I want you to make *f*(*x*) close to ℓ, I just have
to tell you how close, and you can tell me that it will be that close as long as
*x* is within a certain distance of *a*.

In terms of infinitesimals, we have:

##### Definition of the limit

We say that ℓ is the limit of the function *f*(*x*) as *x* approaches *a*, written

if the following is true: for any infinitesimal number *dx*,
the value of *f*(*a*+*dx*) is finite, and the standard
part of *f*(*a*+*dx*) equals ℓ.

The two definitions are equivalent. As remarked previously, the derivative *dx*/*dt*
can be defined as the limit \lim_{Δ t→0} (Δ x/Δ t), and if we
use the Weierstrass definition of the limit, this means that the derivative can be defined
entirely in terms of the real number system, without the user
of hyperreal numbers.

Sometimes a limit can be evaluated simply by plugging in numbers:

##### Example 7

◊ Evaluate

◊ Plugging in *x*=0, we find that the limit is 1.

In some examples, plugging in fails if we try to do it directly, but can be made to work if we massage the expression into a different form:

##### Example 8

◊ Evaluate◊ Plugging in *x*=0 fails because division by zero is undefined.

Intuitively, however, we expect that the limit will be well defined, and will
equal 2, because for very small values of *x*, the numerator is dominated
by the 2/*x* term, and the denominator by the 1/*x* term, so the 7 and 8686 terms
will matter less and less as *x* gets smaller and smaller.

To demonstrate this more rigorously, a trick that works is to multiply both the top and the bottom by *x*, giving

which equals 2 when we plug in *x*=0, so we find that the limit is zero.

This example is a little subtle, because
when *x* *equals* zero, the function is not defined, and moreover it would
not be valid to multiply both the top and the bottom by *x*. In general, it's not
valid algebra to multiply both the top and the bottom of a fraction by 0, because the
result is 0/0, which is undefined. But we *didn't* actually multiply both the
top and the bottom by zero, because we never let *x* equal zero. Both the Weierstrass
definition and the definition in terms of infinitesimals only refer to the properties of
the function in a region very close to the limiting point, not at the limiting point itself.

This is an example in which the function was not well defined at a certain point, and yet the limit of the function was well defined as we approached that point. In a case like this, where there is only one point missing from the domain of the function, it is natural to extend the definition of the function by filling in the “gap tooth.” Example 41 below shows that this kind of filling-in procedure is not always possible.

##### Example 9

◊ Investigate the limiting behavior of 1/*x*

^{2}as

*x*approaches 0, and 1.

◊ At *x*=1, plugging in works, and we find that the limit is 1.

At *x*=0, plugging in doesn't work, because division by zero is undefined.
Applying the definition in terms of infinitesimals to the limit as *x* approaches 0, we need to find
out whether 1/(0+*dx*)^{2} is finite for infinitesimal *dx*, and if so, whether it always has the same standard
part. But clearly 1/(0+*dx*)^{2}=*dx*^{-2} is always infinite, and we conclude that this limit is undefined.

##### Example 10

◊ Investigate the limiting behavior of*f*(

*x*)=tan

^{-1}(1/

*x*) as

*x*approaches 0.

◊ Plugging in doesn't work, because division by zero is undefined.

In the definition of the limit in terms of infinitesimals, the first requirement is that *f*(0+*dx*) be
finite for infinitesimal values of *dx*. The graph makes this look plausible, and indeed we can prove that
it is true by the transfer principle. For any real *x* we have -π/2 ≤ *f*(*x*) ≤ π/2, and
by the transfer principle this holds for the hyperreals as well, and therefore *f*(0+*dx*) is finite.

The second requirement is that the standard part of *f*(0+*dx*) have a uniquely defined value.
The graph shows that we really have two cases to consider, one on the right side of the graph, and one on the left.
Intuitively, we expect that the standard part of *f*(0+*dx*) will equal π/2 for positive *dx*, and
-π/2 for negative, and thus the second part of the definition will not be satisfied. For a more formal proof,
we can use the transfer principle.
For real *x* with 0<x<1, for example, *f* is always positive and greater than 1, so we conclude based on the transfer principle
that *f*(0+*dx*)>1 for positive infinitesimal *dx*. But on similar grounds we can be sure that *f*(0+*dx*)<-1
when *dx* is negative and infinitesimal. Thus the standard part of *f*(0+*dx*) can have different values for
different infinitesimal values of *dx*, and we conclude that the limit is undefined.

In examples like this, we can define a kind of one-sided limit, notated like this:

where the notations *x*→ 0^{-} and *x*→ 0^{+} are to be read “as *x* approaches zero from
below,” and “as *x* approaches zero from above.”