Think back to the functions you know and the sorts of things you have been asked to draw, factor and so on. Then they are all constructed from simple pieces, such as
These are the building blocks from which we construct functions. Soon we will add a few more functions to this list, especially the exponential function and various inverse functions.
What we will learn in this section is how to compute the limits of the basic building blocks and then how we can compute limits of sums, products and so forth using “limit laws”. This process allows us to compute limits of complicated functions, using very simple tools and without having to resort to “plugging in numbers” or “closer and closer” or “\(\epsilon-\delta\) arguments”.
In the examples we saw above, almost all the interesting limits happened at points where the underlying function was badly behaved — where it jumped, was not defined or blew up to infinity. In those cases we had to be careful and think about what was happening. Thankfully most functions we will see do not have too many points at which these sorts of things happen.
Since we have not seen too many theorems yet, let us examine it carefully piece by piece.
Let \(a,c \in \mathbb{R}\) — just as was the case for definitions, we start a theorem by defining terms and setting the scene. There is not too much scene to set: the symbols \(a\) and \(c\) are real numbers.
\(\ds \mathbf{\lim_{x \to a} c = c}\) — when we take the limit of a constant function (for example think of \(c=3\)), the limit is (unsurprisingly) just that same constant.
\(\ds \mathbf{\lim_{x \to a} x = a}\) — as we noted above for general polynomials, the limit of the function \(f(x) = x\) as \(x\) approaches a given point \(a\text{,}\) is just \(a\text{.}\) This says something quite obvious — as \(x\) approaches \(a\text{,}\)\(x\) approaches \(a\) (if you are not convinced then sketch the graph).
Armed with only these two limits, we cannot do very much. But combining these limits with some arithmetic we can do quite a lot. For a moment, take a step back from limits for a moment and think about how we construct functions. To make the discussion a little more precise think about how we might construct the function
Such trees were discussed in Section 0.5 (now is not a bad time to quickly review that section before proceeding). The point here is that in order to compute the value of the function we just repeatedly add, subtract, multiply and divide constants and \(x\text{.}\)
Let \(a,c \in \mathbb{R}\text{,}\) let \(f(x)\) and \(g(x)\) be defined for all \(x\)’s that lie in some interval about \(a\) (but \(f,g\) need not be defined exactly at \(a\)).
The above theorem shows that limits interact very simply with arithmetic. If you are asked to find the limit of a sum then the answer is just the sum of the limits. Similarly the limit of a product is just the product of the limits.
This is an excruciating level of detail, but when you first use this theorem and try some examples it is a good idea to do things step by step by step until you are comfortable with it.
To apply the arithmetic of limits, we need to examine numerator and denominator separately and make sure the limit of the denominator is non-zero. Numerator first:
\begin{align*}
\lim_{x \to 2} x & = 2 & \text{limit of $x$}\\
\end{align*}
and now the denominator:
\begin{align*}
\lim_{x \to 2} x-1
& = \left( \lim_{x \to 2} x \right) - \left( \lim_{x \to 2} 1 \right)
& \text{difference of limits}\\
& = 2 - 1
& \text{limit of $x$ and limit of constant}
& = 1
\end{align*}
Since the limit of the denominator is non-zero we can put it back together to get
We must be careful when computing the limit of a ratio — it is the ratio of the limits except when the limit of the denominator is zero. When the limit of the denominator is zero Theorem 1.4.3does not apply and a few interesting things can happen
If the limit of the numerator is non-zero then the limit of the ratio does not exist
\begin{align*}
\lim_{x \to a} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} &= DNE & \text{when $\lim_{x\to a} f(x) \neq
0$ and $\lim_{x \to a} g(x)=0$}
\end{align*}
For example, \(\ds \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{1}{x^2} = DNE\text{.}\)
If the limit of the numerator is zero then the above theorem does not give us enough information to decide whether or not the limit exists. It is possible that
the limit does not exist, eg. \(\ds \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{x}{x^2} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{1}{x} = DNE\)
Now while the above examples are very simple and a little contrived they serve to illustrate the point we are trying to make — be careful if the limit of the denominator is zero.
With a little care you can use the arithmetic of limits to obtain the following rules for limits of powers of functions and limits of roots of functions:
You may not know the definition of the power \(b^p\) when \(p\) is not a rational number, so here it is. If \(b>0\) and \(p\) is any real number, then \(b^p\) is the limit of \(b^r\) as \(r\) approaches \(p\) through rational numbers. We won’t do so here, but it is possible to prove that the limit exists.
Also note that the notation \(x^{1/2}\) refers to the positive square root of \(x\text{.}\) While \(2\) and \((-2)\) are both square-roots of \(4\text{,}\) the notation \(4^{1/2}\) means \(2\text{.}\) This is something we must be careful of 4
Like ending sentences in prepositions — “This is something up with which we will not put.” This quote is attributed to Churchill though there is some dispute as to whether or not he really said it.
It is clear that limits of polynomials are very easy, while those of rational functions are easy except when the denominator might go to zero. We have seen examples where the resulting limit does not exist, and some where it does. We now work to explain this more systematically. The following example demonstrates that it is sometimes possible to take the limit of a rational function to a point at which the denominator is zero. Indeed we must be able to do exactly this in order to be able to define derivatives in the next chapter.
Since the denominator is zero, we cannot apply our theorem and we are, for the moment, stuck. However, there is more that we can do here — the hint is that the numerator and denominator both approach zero as \(x\) approaches 1. This means that there might be something we can cancel.
So what we really have here is the following function
\begin{align*}
\frac{x^3-x^2}{x-1} &= \begin{cases}
x^2 & x \neq 1\\
\text{undefined } & x = 1
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
If we plot the above function the graph looks exactly the same as \(y=x^2\) except that the function is not defined at \(x=1\) (since at \(x=1\) both numerator and denominator are zero).
When we compute a limit as \(x \to a\text{,}\) the value of the function exactly at \(x=a\) is irrelevant. We only care what happens to the function as we bring \(x\) very close to \(a\text{.}\) So for the above problem we can write
\begin{align*}
\frac{x^3-x^2}{x-1} &= x^2 & \text{when $x$ is close to $1$ but not at $x=1$}
\end{align*}
So the limit as \(x \to 1\) of the function is the same as the limit \(\ds \lim_{x\to 1} x^2\) since the functions are the same except exactly at \(x=1\text{.}\) By this reasoning we get
How do we know when to use this theorem? The big clue is that when we try to compute the limit in a naive way, we end up with \(\frac{0}{0}\text{.}\) We know that \(\frac{0}{0}\) does not make sense, but it is an indication that there might be a common factor between numerator and denominator that can be cancelled. In the previous example, this common factor was \((x-1)\text{.}\)
Of course — we have written everything out in great detail here and that is way more than is required for a solution to such a problem. Let us do it again a little more succinctly.
If we try to use the arithmetic of limits, then we see that the limit of the numerator and the limit of the denominator are both zero. Hence we should try to factor them and cancel any common factor. This gives
Notice that even though we did this example carefully above, we have still written some text in our working explaining what we have done. You should always think about the reader and if in doubt, put in more explanation rather than less. We could make the above example even more terse
So doing the naive thing we’d get \(0/0\text{.}\) This suggests a common factor that can be cancelled. Since the numerator and denominator are not polynomials we have to try other tricks 5
While these tricks are useful (and even cute 6
Mathematicians tend to have quite strong opinions on the beauty of mathematics. For example, Paul Erdős 7
Arguably the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century — definitely worth a google. The authors do not know his opinion on nested footnotes 8
Nested footnotes are generally frowned upon, since they can get quite contorted; see XKCD-1208 and also the novel “House of Leaves” by Mark Z. Danielewski.
.
said “Why are numbers beautiful? It’s like asking why is Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony beautiful. If you don’t see why, someone can’t tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren’t beautiful, nothing is.”.
— this footnote is better in the online edition), Taylor polynomials (see Section 3.4) give us a more systematic way of approaching this problem.
. We can simplify the denominator \(\sqrt{1+x}-1\) a lot, and in particular eliminate the square root, by multiplying it by its conjugate \(\sqrt{1+x}+1\text{.}\)
\begin{align*}
\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x}-1}
&=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x}-1} \times \frac{\sqrt{1+x}+1}{\sqrt{1+x}+1}
& \text{multiply by $\frac{\text{conjugate}}{\text{conjugate}}=1$}\\
&=\frac{x \left( \sqrt{1+x}+1\right)}
{\left(\sqrt{1+x}-1\right)\left(\sqrt{1+x}+1\right)}
& \text{bring things together }\\
&=\frac{x \left( \sqrt{1+x}+1\right)}
{\left(\sqrt{1+x}\right)^2 - 1\cdot 1}
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \text{since $(a\!-\!b)(a\!+\!b)=a^2\!-\!b^2$}\\
&=\frac{x \left( \sqrt{1+x}+1\right)}
{1+x - 1}
& \text{clean up a little}\\
&=\frac{x \left( \sqrt{1+x}+1\right)}{x}\\
&= \sqrt{1+x}+1
& \text{cancel the $x$}
\end{align*}
so, to eliminate the square root from the denominator, we employ a trick — we multiply by 1. Of course, multiplying by 1 doesn’t do anything. But if you multiply by 1 carefully you can leave the value the same, but change the form of the expression. More precisely
Before we move on to limits at infinity, there is one more theorem to see. While the scope of its application is quite limited, it can be extremely useful. It is called a sandwich theorem or a squeeze theorem for reasons that will become apparent.
It is a fact of life, that not all the functions that are encountered in mathematics will be elegant and simple; this is especially true when the mathematics gets applied to real world problems. One just has to work with what one gets. So how can we compute
But we just cheated — we cannot use the arithmetic of limits theorem here, because the limit
\begin{align*}
\lim_{x \to 0} \sin(\pi/x) &= DNE
\end{align*}
does not exist. Now we did see the function \(\sin(\pi/x)\) before (in Example 1.3.5), so you should go back and look at it again. Unfortunately the theorem “the limit of a product is the product of the limits” only holds when the limits you are trying to multiply together actually exist. So we cannot use it.
However, we do see that the function naturally decomposes into the product of two pieces — the functions \(x^2\) and \(\sin(\pi/x)\text{.}\) We have sketched the two functions in the figure on the left below.
While \(x^2\) is a very well behaved function and we know quite a lot about it, the function \(\sin(\pi/x)\) is quite ugly. One of the few things we can say about it is the following
and we have sketched the result in the figure above (on the right). So the function we are interested in is squeezed or sandwiched between the functions \(x^2\) and \(-x^2\text{.}\)
If we focus in on the picture close to \(x=0\) we see that \(x\) approaches \(0\text{,}\) the functions \(x^2\) and \(-x^2\) both approach \(0\text{.}\) Further, because \(x^2\sin(\pi/x)\) is sandwiched between them, it seems that it also approaches \(0\text{.}\)
Notice how we have used “words”. We have remarked on this several times already in the text, but we will keep mentioning it. It is okay to use words in your answers to maths problems — and you should do so! These let the reader know what you are doing and help you understand what you are doing.
We are already supplied with an inequality, so it is likely that it is going to help us. We should examine the limits of each side to see if they are the same:
So we see that the function \(f(x)\) is trapped between two functions that both approach \(1\) as \(x \to 1\text{.}\) Hence by the sandwich / pinch / squeeze theorem, we know that
To get some intuition as to why the squeeze theorem is true, consider when \(x\) is very very close to \(a\text{.}\) In particular, consider when \(x\) is sufficiently close to \(a\) that we know \(h(x)\) is within \(10^{-6}\) of \(L\) and that \(f(x)\) is also within \(10^{-6}\) of \(L\text{.}\) That is
In this argument our choice of \(10^{-6}\) was arbitrary, so we can really replace \(10^{-6}\) with any small number we like. Hence we know that we can force \(g(x)\) as close to \(L\) as we like, by bringing \(x\) sufficiently close to \(a\text{.}\) We give a more formal and rigorous version of this argument at the end of Section 1.9.
Suppose \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x)=0\) and \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow a} g(x)=0\text{.}\) Which of the following limits can you compute, given this information?
Give two functions \(f(x)\) and \(g(x)\) that satisfy \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3}f(x)=\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3}g(x)=0\) and \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3} \dfrac{f(x)}{g(x)}=10\text{.}\)
Give two functions \(f(x)\) and \(g(x)\) that satisfy \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3}f(x)=\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3}g(x)=0\) and \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3} \dfrac{f(x)}{g(x)}=0\text{.}\)
Give two functions \(f(x)\) and \(g(x)\) that satisfy \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3}f(x)=\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3}g(x)=0\) and \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow 3} \dfrac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\infty\text{.}\)
Suppose \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow a}f(x)=\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow a}g(x)=0\text{.}\) What are the possible values of \(\displaystyle\lim_{x \rightarrow a}\dfrac{f(x)}{g(x)}\text{?}\)
Suppose the position of a white ball, at time \(t\text{,}\) is given by \(s(t)\text{,}\) and the position of a red ball is given by \(2s(t)\text{.}\) Using the definition from Section 1.2 of the velocity of a particle, and the limit laws from this section, answer the following question: if the white ball has velocity 5 at time \(t=1\text{,}\) what is the velocity of the red ball?