CHAPTER 3

Limits and Continuous Functions

1. Informal definition of limits

√
While it is easy to define precisely in a few words what a square root is ( a is the positive number whose
square is a) the definition of the limit of a function runs over several terse lines, and most people don’t find it
very enlightening when they first see it. (See §2.) So we postpone this for a while and fine tune our intuition
for another page.

1.1. Definition of limit (1st attempt). If f is some function then

lim f (x) = L
x→a
is read “the limit of f (x) as x approaches a is L.” It means that if you choose values of x which are close but
not equal to a, then f (x) will be close to the value L; moreover, f (x) gets closer and closer to L as x gets
closer and closer to a.
The following alternative notation is sometimes used
f (x) → L as x → a;
(read “f (x) approaches L as x approaches a” or “f (x) goes to L is x goes to a”.)

1.2. Example. If f (x) = x + 3 then

lim f (x) = 7,
x→4
is true, because if you substitute numbers x close to 4 in f (x) = x + 3 the result will be close to 7.

1.3. Example: substituting numbers to guess a limit. What (if anything) is

x2 − 2x
lim ?
x→2 x2 − 4

Here f (x) = (x2 − 2x)/(x2 − 4) and a = 2.

We first try to substitute x = 2, but this leads to
22 − 2 · 2 0
f (2) = =
22 − 4 0
which does not exist. Next we try to substitute values of x close but not equal to 2. Table 1 suggests that
f (x) approaches 0.5.

x f (x) x g(x)
3.000000 0.600000 1.000000 1.009990
2.500000 0.555556 0.500000 1.009980
2.100000 0.512195 0.100000 1.009899
2.010000 0.501247 0.010000 1.008991
2.001000 0.500125 0.001000 1.000000
Table 1. Finding limits by substituting values of x “close to a.” (Values of f (x) and g(x) rounded to
six decimals.)

21
 1.4. Example: Substituting numbers can suggest the wrong answer. The previous example
shows that our first definition of “limit” is not very precise, because it says “x close to a,” but how close is
close enough? Suppose we had taken the function
101 000x
g(x) =
100 000x + 1
and we had asked for the limit limx→0 g(x).
Then substitution of some “small values of x” could lead us to believe that the limit is 1.000 . . .. Only
when you substitute even smaller values do you find that the limit is 0 (zero)!
See also problem 29.

2. The formal, authoritative, definition of limit

The informal description of the limit uses phrases like “closer and closer” and “really very small.” In
the end we don’t really know what they mean, although they are suggestive. “Fortunately” there is a good
definition, i.e. one which is unambiguous and can be used to settle any dispute about the question of whether
limx→a f (x) equals some number L or not. Here is the definition. It takes a while to digest, so read it once,
look at the examples, do a few exercises, read the definition again. Go on to the next sections. Throughout
the semester come back to this section and read it again.

2.1. Definition of limx→a f (x) = L. We say that L is the limit of f (x) as x → a, if

(1) f (x) need not be defined at x = a, but it must be defined for all other x in some interval which
contains a.
(2) for every ε > 0 one can find a δ > 0 such that for all x in the domain of f one has
(8) |x − a| < δ implies |f (x) − L| < ε.

Why the absolute values? The quantity |x − y| is the distance between the points x and y on the
number line, and one can measure how close x is to y by calculating |x − y|. The inequality |x − y| < δ says
that “the distance between x and y is less than δ,” or that “x and y are closer than δ.”

What are ε and δ? The quantity ε is how close you would like f (x) to be to its limit L; the quantity δ
is how close you have to choose x to a to achieve this. To prove that limx→a f (x) = L you must assume that
someone has given you an unknown ε > 0, and then find a postive δ for which (8) holds. The δ you find will
depend on ε.

2.2. Show that limx→5 2x + 1 = 11 . We have f (x) = 2x + 1, a = 5 and L = 11, and the question we
must answer is “how close should x be to 5 if want to be sure that f (x) = 2x + 1 differs less than ε from
L = 11?”
To figure this out we try to get an idea of how big |f (x) − L| is:
|f (x) − L| = (2x + 1) − 11 = |2x − 10| = 2 · |x − 5| = 2 · |x − a|.
So, if 2|x − a| < ε then we have |f (x) − L| < ε, i.e.
if |x − a| < 21 ε then |f (x) − L| < ε.

We can therefore choose δ = 12 ε. No matter what ε > 0 we are given our δ will also be positive, and if
|x − 5| < δ then we can guarantee |(2x + 1) − 11| < ε. That shows that limx→5 2x + 1 = 11.
22
 y = f (x)
L+ε

L How close must x be to a for f (x) to end up in this range?

L−ε

y = f (x)
L+ε

L−ε
For some x in this interval f (x) is not between L − ε and
L + ε. Therefore the δ in this picture is too big for the
given ε. You need a smaller δ.
a−δ a+δ
a

y = f (x)
L+ε

L−ε
If you choose x in this interval then f (x) will be between
L − ε and L + ε. Therefore the δ in this picture is small
enough for the given ε.
a−δ a+δ
a

2.3. The limit limx→1 x2 = 1 and the “don’t choose δ > 1” trick. We have f (x) = x2 , a = 1,
L = 1, and again the question is, “how small should |x − 1| be to guarantee |x2 − 1| < ε?”
We begin by estimating the difference |x2 − 1|

|x2 − 1| = |(x − 1)(x + 1)| = |x + 1| · |x − 1|.

23
 Propagation of errors – another interpretation of ε and δ

According to the limit definition “limx→R πx2 = A” is true if for every ε > 0 you can find a δ > 0 such that
|x − R| < δ implies |πx2 − A| < ε. Here’s a more concrete situation in which ε and δ appear in exactly the same
roles:

Suppose you are given a circle drawn on a piece of Now you can ask the following question:
paper, and you want to know its area. You decide to Suppose you want to know the area
measure its radius, R, and then compute the area of with an error of at most ε,
the circle by calculating then what is the largest error
Area = πR2 . that you can afford to make
when you measure the radius?
The area is a function of the radius, and we’ll call The answer will be something like this: if you want
that function f : the computed area to have an error of at most
f (x) = πx2 . |f (x) − A| < ε, then the error in your radius mea-
surement should satisfy |x − R| < δ. You have to do
When you measure the radius R you will make
the algebra with inequalities to compute δ when you
an error, simply because you can never measure any-
know ε, as in the examples in this section.
thing with infinite precision. Suppose that R is the
You would expect that if your measured radius
real value of the radius, and that x is the number you
x is close enough to the real value R, then your com-
measured. Then the size of the error you made is
puted area f (x) = πx2 will be close to the real area
error in radius measurement = |x − R|. A.
In terms of ε and δ this means that you would
When you compute the area you also won’t get the
expect that no matter how accurately you want to
exact value: you would get f (x) = πx2 instead of
know the area (i.e how small you make ε) you can
A = f (R) = πR2 . The error in your computed value
always achieve that precision by making the error
of the area is
in your radius measurement small enough (i.e. by
error in area = |f (x) − f (R)| = |f (x) − A|. making δ sufficiently small).

As x approaches 1 the factor |x − 1| becomes small, and if the other factor |x + 1| were a constant (e.g. 2 as
in the previous example) then we could find δ as before, by dividing ε by that constant.
Here is a trick that allows you to replace the factor |x + 1| with a constant. We hereby agree that we
always choose our δ so that δ ≤ 1. If we do that, then we will always have
|x − 1| < δ ≤ 1, i.e. |x − 1| < 1,
and x will always be beween 0 and 2. Therefore
|x2 − 1| = |x + 1| · |x − 1| < 3|x − 1|.
If we now want to be sure that |x2 − 1| < ε, then this calculation shows that we should require 3|x − 1| < ε,
i.e. |x − 1| < 13 ε. So we should choose δ ≤ 13 ε. We must also live up to our promise never to choose δ > 1, so
if we are handed an ε for which 13 ε > 1, then we choose δ = 1 instead of δ = 13 ε. To summarize, we are going
to choose
1
δ = the smaller of 1 and ε.
3
We have shown that if you choose δ this way, then |x − 1| < δ implies |x2 − 1| < ε, no matter what ε > 0 is.
The expression “the smaller of a and b” shows up often, and is abbreviated to min(a, b). We could
therefore say that in this problem we will choose δ to be
δ = min 1, 13 ε .

24
 2.4. Show that limx→4 1/x = 1/4. Solution: We apply the definition with a = 4, L = 1/4 and
f (x) = 1/x. Thus, for any ε > 0 we try to show that if |x − 4| is small enough then one has |f (x) − 1/4| < ε.
We begin by estimating |f (x) − 14 | in terms of |x − 4|:
1 1 4−x |x − 4| 1
|f (x) − 1/4| = − = = = |x − 4|.
x 4 4x |4x| |4x|
As before, things would be easier if 1/|4x| were a constant. To achieve that we again agree not to take δ > 1.
If we always have δ ≤ 1, then we will always have |x − 4| < 1, and hence 3 < x < 5. How large can 1/|4x| be
in this situation? Answer: the quantity 1/|4x| increases as you decrease x, so if 3 < x < 5 then it will never
1
be larger than 1/|4 · 3| = 12 .
We see that if we never choose δ > 1, we will always have
|f (x) − 14 | ≤ 1
12 |x − 4| for |x − 4| < δ.
1
To guarantee that |f (x) − 4| < ε we could threfore require
1
12 |x − 4| < ε, i.e. |x − 4| < 12ε.
Hence if we choose δ = 12ε or any smaller number, then |x − 4| < δ implies |f (x) − 4| < ε. Of course we have
to honor our agreement never to choose δ > 1, so our choice of δ is


δ = the smaller of 1 and 12ε = min 1, 12ε .

3. Exercises

38. Group Problem. 43. lim x3 + 6x2 = 32.

x→2
Joe offers to make square sheets of paper for Bruce. √
44. lim x = 2.
Given x > 0 Joe plans to mark off a length x and cut x→4
out a square of side x. Bruce asks Joe for a square with √
45. lim x + 6 = 9.
area 4 square foot. Joe tells Bruce that he can’t measure x→3

exactly 2 foot and the area of the square he produces will 1+x
46. lim = 12 .
only be approximately 4 square foot. Bruce doesn’t mind x→2 4+x
as long as the area of the square doesn’t differ more than 2−x
0.01 square foot from what he really asked for (namely, 4 47. lim = 13 .
x→1 4 − x
square foot). x
48. lim = 1.
(a) What is the biggest error Joe can afford to make x→3 6 − x
when he marks off the length x? p
49. lim |x| = 0
(b) Jen also wants square sheets, with area 4 square x→0

feet. However, she needs the error in the area to be less 50. Group Problem.
than 0.00001 square foot. (She’s paying). (Joe goes cubic.) Joe is offering to build cubes of
How accurate must Joe measure the side of the side x. Airline regulations allow you take a cube on board
squares he’s going to cut for Jen? provided its volume and surface area add up to less than 33
Use the ε–δ definition to prove the following limits (everything measured in feet). For instance, a cube with
2 foot sides has volume+area equal to 23 + 6 × 22 = 32.
39. lim 2x − 4 = 6
x→1 If you ask Joe to build a cube whose volume plus
2 total surface area is 32 cubic feet with an error of at
40. lim x = 4.
x→2 most ε, then what error can he afford to make when he
41. lim x2 − 7x + 3 = −7 measures the side of the cube he’s making?
x→2
51. Our definition of a derivative in (7) contains a limit.
42. lim x3 = 27 What is the function “f ” there, and what is the variable?
x→3

4. Variations on the limit theme

Not all limits are “for x → a.” here we describe some possible variations on the concept of limit.
25
 4.1. Left and right limits. When we let “x approach a” we allow x to be both larger or smaller than
a, as long as x gets close to a. If we explicitly want to study the behaviour of f (x) as x approaches a through
values larger than a, then we write
lim f (x) or lim f (x) or lim f (x) or lim f (x).
x&a x→a+ x→a+0 x→a,x>a

All four notations are in use. Similarly, to designate the value which f (x) approaches as x approaches a
through values below a one writes
lim f (x) or lim f (x) or lim f (x) or lim f (x).
x%a x→a− x→a−0 x→a,x<a

The precise definition of right limits goes like this:

4.2. Definition of right-limits. Let f be a function. Then

(9) lim f (x) = L.
x&a

means that for every ε > 0 one can find a δ > 0 such that
a < x < a + δ =⇒ |f (x) − L| < ε
holds for all x in the domain of f .
The left-limit, i.e. the one-sided limit in which x approaches a through values less than a is defined in a
similar way. The following theorem tells you how to use one-sided limits to decide if a function f (x) has a
limit at x = a.

4.3. Theorem. If both one-sided limits

lim f (x) = L+ , and lim f (x) = L−
x&a x%a

exist, then
lim f (x) exists ⇐⇒ L+ = L− .
x→a

In other words, if a function has both left- and right-limits at some x = a, then that function has a limit
at x = a if the left- and right-limits are equal.

4.4. Limits at infinity. Instead of letting x approach some finite number, one can let x become “larger
and larger” and ask what happens to f (x). If there is a number L such that f (x) gets arbitrarily close to L
if one chooses x sufficiently large, then we write
lim f (x) = L, or lim f (x) = L, or lim f (x) = L.
x→∞ x↑∞ x%∞

(“The limit for x going to infinity is L.”)

4.5. Example – Limit of 1/x . The larger you choose x, the smaller its reciprocal 1/x becomes.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to say
1
lim = 0.
x→∞ x
Here is the precise definition:

4.6. Definition of limit at ∞. Let f be some function which is defined on some interval x0 < x < ∞.
If there is a number L such that for every ε > 0 one can find an A such that
x > A =⇒ |f (x) − L| < ε
for all x, then we say that the limit of f (x) for x → ∞ is L.
The definition is very similar to the original definition of the limit. Instead of δ which specifies how close
x should be to a, we now have a number A which says how large x should be, which is a way of saying “how
close x should be to infinity.”
26
 4.7. Example – Limit of 1/x (again) . To prove that limx→∞ 1/x = 0 we apply the definition to
f (x) = 1/x, L = 0.
For given ε > 0 we need to show that
1
(10) − L < ε for all x > A
x
provided we choose the right A.
How do we choose A? A is not allowed to depend on x, but it may depend on ε.
If we assume for now that we will only consider positive values of x, then (10) simplifies to
1
<ε
x
which is equivalent to
1
x> .
ε
This tells us how to choose A. Given any positive ε, we will simply choose
1
A=
ε
Then one has | x1 − 0| = x1 < ε for all x > A. Hence we have proved that limx→∞ 1/x = 0.

5. Properties of the Limit

The precise definition of the limit is not easy to use, and fortunately we won’t use it very often in this
class. Instead, there are a number of properties that limits have which allow you to compute them without
having to resort to “epsiloncy.”
The following properties also apply to the variations on the limit from 4. I.e. the following statements
remain true if one replaces each limit by a one-sided limit, or a limit for x → ∞.
Limits of constants and of x. If a and c are constants, then
(P1 ) lim c = c
x→a
and
(P2 ) lim x = a.
x→a

Limits of sums, products and quotients. Let F1 and F2 be two given functions whose limits for
x → a we know,
lim F1 (x) = L1 , lim F2 (x) = L2 .
x→a x→a
Then


(P3 ) lim F1 (x) + F2 (x) = L1 + L2 ,
x→a


(P4 ) lim F1 (x) − F2 (x) = L1 − L2 ,
x→a


(P5 ) lim F1 (x) · F2 (x) = L1 · L2
x→a

Finally, if limx→a F2 (x) 6= 0,

F1 (x) L1
(P6 ) lim = .
x→a F2 (x) L2
In other words the limit of the sum is the sum of the limits, etc. One can prove these laws using the
definition of limit in §2 but we will not do this here. However, I hope these laws seem like common sense:
if, for x close to a, the quantity F1 (x) is close to L1 and F2 (x) is close to L2 , then certainly F1 (x) + F2 (x)
should be close to L1 + L2 .
27
 There are two more properties of limits which we will add to this list later on. They are the “Sandwich
Theorem” (§9) and the substitution theorem (§10).

6. Examples of limit computations

6.1. Find limx→2 x2 . One has

lim x2 = lim x · x
x→2 x→2



= lim x · lim x by (P5 )
x→2 x→2
= 2 · 2 = 4.
Similarly,
lim x3 = lim x · x2
x→2 x→2
= lim x · lim x2



(P5 ) again
x→2 x→2
= 2 · 4 = 8,
and, by (P4 )
lim x2 − 1 = lim x2 − lim 1 = 4 − 1 = 3,
x→2 x→2 x→2
and, by (P4 ) again,
lim x3 − 1 = lim x3 − lim 1 = 8 − 1 = 7,
x→2 x→2 x→2
Putting all this together, one gets
x3 − 1 23 − 1 8−1 7
lim 2
= 2 = =
x→2 x − 1 2 −1 4−1 3
because of (P6 ). To apply (P6 ) we must check that the denominator (“L2 ”) is not zero. Since the denominator
is 3 everything is OK, and we were allowed to use (P6 ).

6.2. Try the examples 1.3 and 1.4 using the limit properties. To compute limx→2 (x2 −2x)/(x2 −
4) we first use the limit properties to find
lim x2 − 2x = 0 and lim x2 − 4 = 0.
x→2 x→2

to complete the computation we would like to apply the last property (P6 ) about quotients, but this would
give us
0
lim f (x) = .
x→2 0
The denominator is zero, so we were not allowed to use (P6 ) (and the result doesn’t mean anything anyway).
We have to do something else.
The function we are dealing with is a rational function, which means that it is the quotient of two
polynomials. For such functions there is an algebra trick which always allows you to compute the limit even
if you first get 00 . The thing to do is to divide numerator and denominator by x − 2. In our case we have
x2 − 2x = (x − 2) · x, x2 − 4 = (x − 2) · (x + 2)
so that
(x − 2) · x x
lim f (x) = lim = lim .
x→2 x→2 (x − 2) · (x + 2) x→2 x + 2

After this simplification we can use the properties (P... ) to compute

2 1
lim f (x) = = .
x→2 2+2 2
28
 √ √ √
6.3. Example – Find limx→2 x . Of course, you would think that limx→2 x = 2 and you can
indeed prove this using δ & ε (See problem 44.) But is there an easier way? There is nothing in the limit
properties which tells us how to deal with a square root, and using them we can’t even prove that there is a
limit. However, if you assume that the limit exists then the limit properties allow us to find this limit.
The argument goes like this: suppose that there is a number L with
√
lim x = L.
x→2

Then property (P5 ) implies that

√
√
√ √
L2 = lim x · lim x = lim x · x = lim x = 2.
x→2 x→2 x→2 x→2
2
√ √
In other words, L = 2, and hence L must be either 2 or − 2. We can reject the latter because whatever x
does,
√ its squareroot is always a positive number, and hence it can never “get close to” a negative number like
− 2.
Our conclusion: if the limit exists, then
√ √
lim x= 2.
x→2
√ √
The result is not surprising: if x gets close to 2 then x gets close to 2.
√
6.4. Example – The derivative of x at x = 2. Find
√ √
x− 2
lim
x→2 x−2
assuming the result from the previous example.
Solution: The function is a fraction whose numerator and denominator vanish when x = 2, i.e. the limit
is of the form 00 . We use the same algebra trick as before, namely we factor numerator and denominator:
√ √ √ √
x− 2 x− 2 1
= √ √ √ √ =√ √ .
x−2 ( x − 2)( x + 2) x+ 2
Now one can use the limit properties to compute
√ √ √
x− 2 1 1 2
lim = lim √ √ = √ = .
x→2 x−2 x→2 x+ 2 2 2 4

6.5. Limit as x → ∞ of rational functions. A rational function is the quotient of two polynomials,
so
an xn + · · · + a1 x + a0
(11) R(x) = .
bm xm + · · · + b1 x + b0
We have seen that
1
=0lim
x x→∞
We even proved this in example 4.7. Using this you can find the limit at ∞ for any rational function R(x) as
in (11). One could turn the outcome of the calculation of limx→∞ R(x) into a recipe/formula involving the
degrees n and m of the numerator and denominator, and also their coefficients ai , bj , which students would
then memorize, but it is better to remember “the trick.”
To find limx→∞ R(x) divide numerator and denominator by xm (the highest power of x occurring in the
denominator).
For example, let’s compute
3x2 + 3
lim .
x→∞ 5x2 + 7x − 39
29
Remember the trick and divide top and bottom by x2 , and you get
3x2 + 3 3 + 3/x2
lim = lim
x→∞ 5x2 + 7x − 39 x→∞ 5 + 7/x − 39/x2

limx→∞ 3 + 3/x2
=
limx→∞ 5 + 7/x − 39/x2
3
=
5
Here we have used the limit properties (P∗ ) to break the limit down into little pieces like limx→∞ 39/x2
which we can compute as follows
 2    2
1 1
lim 39/x2 = lim 39 · = lim 39 · lim = 39 · 02 = 0.
x→∞ x→∞ x x→∞ x→∞ x

6.6. Another example with a rational function . Compute

x
lim 3 .
x→∞ x + 5

We apply “the trick” again and divide numerator and denominator by x3 . This leads to
x 1/x2 limx→∞ 1/x2 0
lim = lim = = = 0.
x→∞ x3 + 5 x→∞ 1 + 5/x 3 limx→∞ 1 + 5/x 3 1
To show all possible ways a limit of a rational function can turn out we should do yet another example,
but that one belongs in the next section (see example 7.6.)

7. When limits fail to exist

In the last couple of examples we worried about the possibility that a limit limx→a g(x) actually might
not exist. This can actually happen, and in this section we’ll see a few examples of what failed limits look
like. First let’s agree on what we will call a “failed limit.”

7.1. Definition. If there is no number L such that limx→a f (x) = L, then we say that the limit
limx→a f (x) does not exist.

7.2. The sign function near x = 0 . The “sign function1” is defined by


−1 for x < 0

sign(x) = 0 for x = 0

1 for x > 0


Note that “the sign of zero” is defined to be zero. But does the sign function have a limit at x = 0, i.e. does
limx→0 sign(x) exist? And is it also zero? The answers are no and no, and here is why: suppose that for
some number L one had
lim sign(x) = L,
x→0
then since for arbitrary small positive values of x one has sign(x) = +1 one would think that L = +1. But
for arbitrarily small negative values of x one has sign(x) = −1, so one would conclude that L = −1. But one
number L can’t be both +1 and −1 at the same time, so there is no such L, i.e. there is no limit.
lim sign(x) does not exist.
x→0

1Some people don’t like the notation sign(x), and prefer to write
x
g(x) =
|x|
instead of g(x) = sign(x). If you think about this formula for a moment you’ll see that sign(x) = x/|x| for all x 6= 0. When
x = 0 the quotient x/|x| is of course not defined.

30