Assuming the existence of solutions in solving exercises












16












$begingroup$


A sizeable chunk of my first calculus course at university comprised of learning techniques to evaluate limits, such as this simple example, evaluating the limit: $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}.$$



A typical solution would be to identify that for $x neq 7$, $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1,$$ so $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1 = 6.$$



In my eyes, we have shown that if the limit exists, its value must be $6$. We have not shown that the limit exists in the first place and is equal to $6$, since we have presupposed the existence of the limit when writing




$$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1,$$




since the existence of both objects on either side of an equality is a necessary condition for the equality to be true (right?).



My main questions are: do such methods of evaluation serve as evidence that these limits in fact exist in the first place, or do they only tell us what the limit ought to be, and the only way we can be sure is to formally prove it using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition? Is this case similar to "finding" the derivatives of functions?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yeah the argument is fine as it is, you don’t need epsilon delta. It’s just that the argumeng is formulated in the wrong direction, but in this case it doesn’t matter since its all iff’s. The correct direction is to say that the limit of x-1 is 6, (because x-1 is continous, which at some level you do need to prove by epsilon delta), and then use the theorem that if two functions f and g agree everywhere wxcept at c, then the limit of the two functions as x approaches c is the same.
    $endgroup$
    – Ovi
    Jan 9 at 16:01










  • $begingroup$
    Since a derivative is defined as a limit the existence of derivative is basically an existence of limit. I hope you are referring to this at the end of your question.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    $epsilon - delta$ definition is used for proving limit theorems and these theorems are then used while evaluating limits. The point of $epsilon - delta$ exercises is to remove the psychological fear (if any) of these Greek symbols (by getting familiar with them) and not to learn proof techniques. The proof techniques are better learnt while studying $epsilon - delta $ proofs of various theorems.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:58
















16












$begingroup$


A sizeable chunk of my first calculus course at university comprised of learning techniques to evaluate limits, such as this simple example, evaluating the limit: $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}.$$



A typical solution would be to identify that for $x neq 7$, $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1,$$ so $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1 = 6.$$



In my eyes, we have shown that if the limit exists, its value must be $6$. We have not shown that the limit exists in the first place and is equal to $6$, since we have presupposed the existence of the limit when writing




$$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1,$$




since the existence of both objects on either side of an equality is a necessary condition for the equality to be true (right?).



My main questions are: do such methods of evaluation serve as evidence that these limits in fact exist in the first place, or do they only tell us what the limit ought to be, and the only way we can be sure is to formally prove it using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition? Is this case similar to "finding" the derivatives of functions?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yeah the argument is fine as it is, you don’t need epsilon delta. It’s just that the argumeng is formulated in the wrong direction, but in this case it doesn’t matter since its all iff’s. The correct direction is to say that the limit of x-1 is 6, (because x-1 is continous, which at some level you do need to prove by epsilon delta), and then use the theorem that if two functions f and g agree everywhere wxcept at c, then the limit of the two functions as x approaches c is the same.
    $endgroup$
    – Ovi
    Jan 9 at 16:01










  • $begingroup$
    Since a derivative is defined as a limit the existence of derivative is basically an existence of limit. I hope you are referring to this at the end of your question.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    $epsilon - delta$ definition is used for proving limit theorems and these theorems are then used while evaluating limits. The point of $epsilon - delta$ exercises is to remove the psychological fear (if any) of these Greek symbols (by getting familiar with them) and not to learn proof techniques. The proof techniques are better learnt while studying $epsilon - delta $ proofs of various theorems.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:58














16












16








16


1



$begingroup$


A sizeable chunk of my first calculus course at university comprised of learning techniques to evaluate limits, such as this simple example, evaluating the limit: $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}.$$



A typical solution would be to identify that for $x neq 7$, $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1,$$ so $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1 = 6.$$



In my eyes, we have shown that if the limit exists, its value must be $6$. We have not shown that the limit exists in the first place and is equal to $6$, since we have presupposed the existence of the limit when writing




$$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1,$$




since the existence of both objects on either side of an equality is a necessary condition for the equality to be true (right?).



My main questions are: do such methods of evaluation serve as evidence that these limits in fact exist in the first place, or do they only tell us what the limit ought to be, and the only way we can be sure is to formally prove it using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition? Is this case similar to "finding" the derivatives of functions?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




A sizeable chunk of my first calculus course at university comprised of learning techniques to evaluate limits, such as this simple example, evaluating the limit: $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}.$$



A typical solution would be to identify that for $x neq 7$, $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1,$$ so $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1 = 6.$$



In my eyes, we have shown that if the limit exists, its value must be $6$. We have not shown that the limit exists in the first place and is equal to $6$, since we have presupposed the existence of the limit when writing




$$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = lim_{x to 7} x-1,$$




since the existence of both objects on either side of an equality is a necessary condition for the equality to be true (right?).



My main questions are: do such methods of evaluation serve as evidence that these limits in fact exist in the first place, or do they only tell us what the limit ought to be, and the only way we can be sure is to formally prove it using the $epsilon$-$delta$ definition? Is this case similar to "finding" the derivatives of functions?







algebra-precalculus limits






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 9 at 15:50









E-muE-mu

786417




786417








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yeah the argument is fine as it is, you don’t need epsilon delta. It’s just that the argumeng is formulated in the wrong direction, but in this case it doesn’t matter since its all iff’s. The correct direction is to say that the limit of x-1 is 6, (because x-1 is continous, which at some level you do need to prove by epsilon delta), and then use the theorem that if two functions f and g agree everywhere wxcept at c, then the limit of the two functions as x approaches c is the same.
    $endgroup$
    – Ovi
    Jan 9 at 16:01










  • $begingroup$
    Since a derivative is defined as a limit the existence of derivative is basically an existence of limit. I hope you are referring to this at the end of your question.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    $epsilon - delta$ definition is used for proving limit theorems and these theorems are then used while evaluating limits. The point of $epsilon - delta$ exercises is to remove the psychological fear (if any) of these Greek symbols (by getting familiar with them) and not to learn proof techniques. The proof techniques are better learnt while studying $epsilon - delta $ proofs of various theorems.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:58














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yeah the argument is fine as it is, you don’t need epsilon delta. It’s just that the argumeng is formulated in the wrong direction, but in this case it doesn’t matter since its all iff’s. The correct direction is to say that the limit of x-1 is 6, (because x-1 is continous, which at some level you do need to prove by epsilon delta), and then use the theorem that if two functions f and g agree everywhere wxcept at c, then the limit of the two functions as x approaches c is the same.
    $endgroup$
    – Ovi
    Jan 9 at 16:01










  • $begingroup$
    Since a derivative is defined as a limit the existence of derivative is basically an existence of limit. I hope you are referring to this at the end of your question.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:53










  • $begingroup$
    $epsilon - delta$ definition is used for proving limit theorems and these theorems are then used while evaluating limits. The point of $epsilon - delta$ exercises is to remove the psychological fear (if any) of these Greek symbols (by getting familiar with them) and not to learn proof techniques. The proof techniques are better learnt while studying $epsilon - delta $ proofs of various theorems.
    $endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh
    Jan 9 at 18:58








3




3




$begingroup$
Yeah the argument is fine as it is, you don’t need epsilon delta. It’s just that the argumeng is formulated in the wrong direction, but in this case it doesn’t matter since its all iff’s. The correct direction is to say that the limit of x-1 is 6, (because x-1 is continous, which at some level you do need to prove by epsilon delta), and then use the theorem that if two functions f and g agree everywhere wxcept at c, then the limit of the two functions as x approaches c is the same.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 9 at 16:01




$begingroup$
Yeah the argument is fine as it is, you don’t need epsilon delta. It’s just that the argumeng is formulated in the wrong direction, but in this case it doesn’t matter since its all iff’s. The correct direction is to say that the limit of x-1 is 6, (because x-1 is continous, which at some level you do need to prove by epsilon delta), and then use the theorem that if two functions f and g agree everywhere wxcept at c, then the limit of the two functions as x approaches c is the same.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jan 9 at 16:01












$begingroup$
Since a derivative is defined as a limit the existence of derivative is basically an existence of limit. I hope you are referring to this at the end of your question.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 9 at 18:53




$begingroup$
Since a derivative is defined as a limit the existence of derivative is basically an existence of limit. I hope you are referring to this at the end of your question.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 9 at 18:53












$begingroup$
$epsilon - delta$ definition is used for proving limit theorems and these theorems are then used while evaluating limits. The point of $epsilon - delta$ exercises is to remove the psychological fear (if any) of these Greek symbols (by getting familiar with them) and not to learn proof techniques. The proof techniques are better learnt while studying $epsilon - delta $ proofs of various theorems.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 9 at 18:58




$begingroup$
$epsilon - delta$ definition is used for proving limit theorems and these theorems are then used while evaluating limits. The point of $epsilon - delta$ exercises is to remove the psychological fear (if any) of these Greek symbols (by getting familiar with them) and not to learn proof techniques. The proof techniques are better learnt while studying $epsilon - delta $ proofs of various theorems.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
Jan 9 at 18:58










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















16












$begingroup$

There's no logical problem with this argument. The expressions
$$
frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} text{ and } x-1
$$

are equal when $x ne 7$, so the first expression has a limit at $7$ if and only if the second does. There is no need to assume the existence of the limit in advance.



Whether or not you need the $epsilon - delta$ argument to find the the limit of $x-1$ depends on the level of rigor your instructor requires.



(There are other situations where a correct argument does have the form




the limit is such and such provided the limit exists




usually followed by a separate proof that there is a limit.)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 6




    $begingroup$
    To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
    $endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 10 at 2:30






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Jan 10 at 17:03



















10












$begingroup$

Note that when we find the limit of a function at a point the value of the function at that point is not important.



In your example the function $f(x) =frac {x^2-8x+7}{x-7}$ and $g(x)=x-1$ have the same values at every point except at $x=7$ thus they have the same limits at that point.



Since $g(x)$ has a limit of $6$ at $x=7$ so does $f(x)$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Leingang
    Jan 9 at 17:50












  • $begingroup$
    I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
    $endgroup$
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    Jan 9 at 18:14



















7












$begingroup$

The $epsilon-delta$ approach is the safest and most standard definition of limit. To show that $lim_{xto x_0}f(x)$ exists and is equal to $L$, we need to show that $$0<|x-x_0|<deltato |f(x)-l|<epsilon$$here we need to show that $$0<|x-7|<deltato left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$also note that for $|x-7|>0$ we have $xne 7$ therefore $$left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsiloniff |x-1-6|<epsilon $$which means that choosing $delta=epsilon>0$ we have proved the existence of the limit i.e.$$0<|x-7|<epsilonto left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$therefore$$lim_{xto 7}{x^2-8x+7over x-7}=6$$Comment



You can exploit this definition whenever you wanted to find the limit of $${(x-x_0)g(x)over x-x_0}$$ in $x=x_0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
    $endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 10 at 2:30










  • $begingroup$
    I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 10 at 10:08



















3












$begingroup$

You haven't really presupposed the existence of the limit and I would say your argument is fine. If you want to be really really scrupulous, perhaps you could re-order things in the final line of your argument.



We have
$$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1$$
for $xne7$, and
$$lim_{xto7}x-1=6 ,$$
so
$$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} =6 .$$



Writing it this way, you have an immediate justification for every limit you claim. (Though as I already said, I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the way you've written it.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Jan 10 at 4:37





















2












$begingroup$

Evaluation of a limit in step by fashion based on limit laws also proves that the limit exists (or does not exist depending on final outcome).



The meaning of the first step in your evaluation $$lim_{xto 7}frac{x^2-8x+7}{x-7}=lim_{xto 7}x-1$$ is that the LHS of the above equation exists if and only if the RHS exists. To elaborate further the above statement signifies that the limiting behavior of the function $(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)$ as $xto 7$ is exactly the same as that of function $(x-1)$ so that if one converges (diverges / oscillates) so does the other. Any algebraic manipulation which is valid for $xneq a$ can be used as a reversible step when evaluating the limit of a function $f(x) $ as $xto a$ and your first step is of this kind.



The second step $$lim_{xto 7}x-1=6$$ uses standard limits $$lim_{xto a} x=a, lim_{xto a} k=k$$ and limit rule dealing with difference of functions and in this step the evaluation of limit is complete.



In general when one evaluates the limit of a complicated function in step by step manner then one must ensure that each step (except the last one which removes the limit operator) must be unconditionally true / reversible / of type if and only if. Usually this fact is not stated but rather assumed implicitly. And therefore while performing step by step evaluation of a limit there is no need to prove apriori that the limit in question exists.





Note 1: The use of L'Hospital's Rule is not unconditional / reversible and hence the steps are logically correct only when the method succeeds in giving an answer. If the application of L'Hospital's Rule does not give a definite answer then it does not mean that the original limit does not exist. So when one uses such a technique like L'Hospital's Rule (which works in one direction) then it is better to ensure (via rough work) that it succeeds and then write the step by step evaluation.



Note 2: The usual limit laws (also known as algebra of limits) as stated in most common textbooks are not reversible (you should see their statements which assume the existence of some limits to conclude the existence / evaluation of related limits). These standard formulations can be replaced by their reversible counterparts which are described in this question.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3067596%2fassuming-the-existence-of-solutions-in-solving-exercises%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    16












    $begingroup$

    There's no logical problem with this argument. The expressions
    $$
    frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} text{ and } x-1
    $$

    are equal when $x ne 7$, so the first expression has a limit at $7$ if and only if the second does. There is no need to assume the existence of the limit in advance.



    Whether or not you need the $epsilon - delta$ argument to find the the limit of $x-1$ depends on the level of rigor your instructor requires.



    (There are other situations where a correct argument does have the form




    the limit is such and such provided the limit exists




    usually followed by a separate proof that there is a limit.)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
      $endgroup$
      – DanielWainfleet
      Jan 10 at 17:03
















    16












    $begingroup$

    There's no logical problem with this argument. The expressions
    $$
    frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} text{ and } x-1
    $$

    are equal when $x ne 7$, so the first expression has a limit at $7$ if and only if the second does. There is no need to assume the existence of the limit in advance.



    Whether or not you need the $epsilon - delta$ argument to find the the limit of $x-1$ depends on the level of rigor your instructor requires.



    (There are other situations where a correct argument does have the form




    the limit is such and such provided the limit exists




    usually followed by a separate proof that there is a limit.)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 6




      $begingroup$
      To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
      $endgroup$
      – DanielWainfleet
      Jan 10 at 17:03














    16












    16








    16





    $begingroup$

    There's no logical problem with this argument. The expressions
    $$
    frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} text{ and } x-1
    $$

    are equal when $x ne 7$, so the first expression has a limit at $7$ if and only if the second does. There is no need to assume the existence of the limit in advance.



    Whether or not you need the $epsilon - delta$ argument to find the the limit of $x-1$ depends on the level of rigor your instructor requires.



    (There are other situations where a correct argument does have the form




    the limit is such and such provided the limit exists




    usually followed by a separate proof that there is a limit.)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    There's no logical problem with this argument. The expressions
    $$
    frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} text{ and } x-1
    $$

    are equal when $x ne 7$, so the first expression has a limit at $7$ if and only if the second does. There is no need to assume the existence of the limit in advance.



    Whether or not you need the $epsilon - delta$ argument to find the the limit of $x-1$ depends on the level of rigor your instructor requires.



    (There are other situations where a correct argument does have the form




    the limit is such and such provided the limit exists




    usually followed by a separate proof that there is a limit.)







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 9 at 15:57









    Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker

    42.4k549112




    42.4k549112








    • 6




      $begingroup$
      To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
      $endgroup$
      – DanielWainfleet
      Jan 10 at 17:03














    • 6




      $begingroup$
      To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
      $endgroup$
      – DanielWainfleet
      Jan 10 at 17:03








    6




    6




    $begingroup$
    To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
    $endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 10 at 2:30




    $begingroup$
    To elaborate on this answer: E-mu's original suggested $lim_{x to 7} dfrac{x^2 - 8x + 7}{x - 7} = lim_{x to 7} x - 1$, as written, literally does assume the limits exist; but in fact it is widely understood as shorthand for exactly the argument that you elaborate.
    $endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 10 at 2:30




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Jan 10 at 17:03




    $begingroup$
    To the proposer: We can write it in full detail as $lim_{xto 7, xne 7}(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)=6iff lim_{xto 7,xne 7}(x-1)=6.$
    $endgroup$
    – DanielWainfleet
    Jan 10 at 17:03











    10












    $begingroup$

    Note that when we find the limit of a function at a point the value of the function at that point is not important.



    In your example the function $f(x) =frac {x^2-8x+7}{x-7}$ and $g(x)=x-1$ have the same values at every point except at $x=7$ thus they have the same limits at that point.



    Since $g(x)$ has a limit of $6$ at $x=7$ so does $f(x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Leingang
      Jan 9 at 17:50












    • $begingroup$
      I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
      $endgroup$
      – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
      Jan 9 at 18:14
















    10












    $begingroup$

    Note that when we find the limit of a function at a point the value of the function at that point is not important.



    In your example the function $f(x) =frac {x^2-8x+7}{x-7}$ and $g(x)=x-1$ have the same values at every point except at $x=7$ thus they have the same limits at that point.



    Since $g(x)$ has a limit of $6$ at $x=7$ so does $f(x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Leingang
      Jan 9 at 17:50












    • $begingroup$
      I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
      $endgroup$
      – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
      Jan 9 at 18:14














    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

    Note that when we find the limit of a function at a point the value of the function at that point is not important.



    In your example the function $f(x) =frac {x^2-8x+7}{x-7}$ and $g(x)=x-1$ have the same values at every point except at $x=7$ thus they have the same limits at that point.



    Since $g(x)$ has a limit of $6$ at $x=7$ so does $f(x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Note that when we find the limit of a function at a point the value of the function at that point is not important.



    In your example the function $f(x) =frac {x^2-8x+7}{x-7}$ and $g(x)=x-1$ have the same values at every point except at $x=7$ thus they have the same limits at that point.



    Since $g(x)$ has a limit of $6$ at $x=7$ so does $f(x)$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 9 at 16:12









    Mohammad Riazi-KermaniMohammad Riazi-Kermani

    41.5k42061




    41.5k42061








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Leingang
      Jan 9 at 17:50












    • $begingroup$
      I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
      $endgroup$
      – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
      Jan 9 at 18:14














    • 3




      $begingroup$
      When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Leingang
      Jan 9 at 17:50












    • $begingroup$
      I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
      $endgroup$
      – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
      Jan 9 at 18:14








    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Leingang
    Jan 9 at 17:50






    $begingroup$
    When I teach this, I call it the “Limits don't see the point” theorem: If $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x neq a$, and $lim_{xto a}g(x) = L$, then $lim_{xto a}f(x) = L$. You can prove this with $epsilon$-$delta$.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Leingang
    Jan 9 at 17:50














    $begingroup$
    I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
    $endgroup$
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    Jan 9 at 18:14




    $begingroup$
    I like that name ( limits do not see the point theorem )
    $endgroup$
    – Mohammad Riazi-Kermani
    Jan 9 at 18:14











    7












    $begingroup$

    The $epsilon-delta$ approach is the safest and most standard definition of limit. To show that $lim_{xto x_0}f(x)$ exists and is equal to $L$, we need to show that $$0<|x-x_0|<deltato |f(x)-l|<epsilon$$here we need to show that $$0<|x-7|<deltato left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$also note that for $|x-7|>0$ we have $xne 7$ therefore $$left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsiloniff |x-1-6|<epsilon $$which means that choosing $delta=epsilon>0$ we have proved the existence of the limit i.e.$$0<|x-7|<epsilonto left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$therefore$$lim_{xto 7}{x^2-8x+7over x-7}=6$$Comment



    You can exploit this definition whenever you wanted to find the limit of $${(x-x_0)g(x)over x-x_0}$$ in $x=x_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30










    • $begingroup$
      I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
      $endgroup$
      – Mostafa Ayaz
      Jan 10 at 10:08
















    7












    $begingroup$

    The $epsilon-delta$ approach is the safest and most standard definition of limit. To show that $lim_{xto x_0}f(x)$ exists and is equal to $L$, we need to show that $$0<|x-x_0|<deltato |f(x)-l|<epsilon$$here we need to show that $$0<|x-7|<deltato left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$also note that for $|x-7|>0$ we have $xne 7$ therefore $$left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsiloniff |x-1-6|<epsilon $$which means that choosing $delta=epsilon>0$ we have proved the existence of the limit i.e.$$0<|x-7|<epsilonto left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$therefore$$lim_{xto 7}{x^2-8x+7over x-7}=6$$Comment



    You can exploit this definition whenever you wanted to find the limit of $${(x-x_0)g(x)over x-x_0}$$ in $x=x_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30










    • $begingroup$
      I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
      $endgroup$
      – Mostafa Ayaz
      Jan 10 at 10:08














    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$

    The $epsilon-delta$ approach is the safest and most standard definition of limit. To show that $lim_{xto x_0}f(x)$ exists and is equal to $L$, we need to show that $$0<|x-x_0|<deltato |f(x)-l|<epsilon$$here we need to show that $$0<|x-7|<deltato left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$also note that for $|x-7|>0$ we have $xne 7$ therefore $$left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsiloniff |x-1-6|<epsilon $$which means that choosing $delta=epsilon>0$ we have proved the existence of the limit i.e.$$0<|x-7|<epsilonto left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$therefore$$lim_{xto 7}{x^2-8x+7over x-7}=6$$Comment



    You can exploit this definition whenever you wanted to find the limit of $${(x-x_0)g(x)over x-x_0}$$ in $x=x_0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    The $epsilon-delta$ approach is the safest and most standard definition of limit. To show that $lim_{xto x_0}f(x)$ exists and is equal to $L$, we need to show that $$0<|x-x_0|<deltato |f(x)-l|<epsilon$$here we need to show that $$0<|x-7|<deltato left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$also note that for $|x-7|>0$ we have $xne 7$ therefore $$left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsiloniff |x-1-6|<epsilon $$which means that choosing $delta=epsilon>0$ we have proved the existence of the limit i.e.$$0<|x-7|<epsilonto left|{x^2-8x+7over x-7}-6right|<epsilon$$therefore$$lim_{xto 7}{x^2-8x+7over x-7}=6$$Comment



    You can exploit this definition whenever you wanted to find the limit of $${(x-x_0)g(x)over x-x_0}$$ in $x=x_0$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jan 9 at 23:10









    AJFarmar

    15910




    15910










    answered Jan 9 at 15:57









    Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

    15.3k3939




    15.3k3939












    • $begingroup$
      What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30










    • $begingroup$
      I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
      $endgroup$
      – Mostafa Ayaz
      Jan 10 at 10:08


















    • $begingroup$
      What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
      $endgroup$
      – LSpice
      Jan 10 at 2:30










    • $begingroup$
      I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
      $endgroup$
      – Mostafa Ayaz
      Jan 10 at 10:08
















    $begingroup$
    What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
    $endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 10 at 2:30




    $begingroup$
    What makes a definition 'safe' (or un-)?
    $endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jan 10 at 2:30












    $begingroup$
    I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 10 at 10:08




    $begingroup$
    I say, for example in the cases that the definition is exactly and explicitly equivalent to the existence or non-existence of a limit not through implicit conditions....
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Jan 10 at 10:08











    3












    $begingroup$

    You haven't really presupposed the existence of the limit and I would say your argument is fine. If you want to be really really scrupulous, perhaps you could re-order things in the final line of your argument.



    We have
    $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1$$
    for $xne7$, and
    $$lim_{xto7}x-1=6 ,$$
    so
    $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} =6 .$$



    Writing it this way, you have an immediate justification for every limit you claim. (Though as I already said, I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the way you've written it.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
      $endgroup$
      – Taladris
      Jan 10 at 4:37


















    3












    $begingroup$

    You haven't really presupposed the existence of the limit and I would say your argument is fine. If you want to be really really scrupulous, perhaps you could re-order things in the final line of your argument.



    We have
    $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1$$
    for $xne7$, and
    $$lim_{xto7}x-1=6 ,$$
    so
    $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} =6 .$$



    Writing it this way, you have an immediate justification for every limit you claim. (Though as I already said, I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the way you've written it.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
      $endgroup$
      – Taladris
      Jan 10 at 4:37
















    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    You haven't really presupposed the existence of the limit and I would say your argument is fine. If you want to be really really scrupulous, perhaps you could re-order things in the final line of your argument.



    We have
    $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1$$
    for $xne7$, and
    $$lim_{xto7}x-1=6 ,$$
    so
    $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} =6 .$$



    Writing it this way, you have an immediate justification for every limit you claim. (Though as I already said, I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the way you've written it.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    You haven't really presupposed the existence of the limit and I would say your argument is fine. If you want to be really really scrupulous, perhaps you could re-order things in the final line of your argument.



    We have
    $$frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} = x-1$$
    for $xne7$, and
    $$lim_{xto7}x-1=6 ,$$
    so
    $$lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7} =6 .$$



    Writing it this way, you have an immediate justification for every limit you claim. (Though as I already said, I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the way you've written it.)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Jan 10 at 3:04

























    answered Jan 9 at 23:03









    DavidDavid

    68k664126




    68k664126








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
      $endgroup$
      – Taladris
      Jan 10 at 4:37
















    • 1




      $begingroup$
      +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
      $endgroup$
      – Taladris
      Jan 10 at 4:37










    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Jan 10 at 4:37






    $begingroup$
    +1. For beginner Calculus students, I usually even write the last line as "so $lim_{x to 7} frac{x^2 -8x + 7}{x-7}$ exists and is equal to $6$" to make sure that a nontrivial part of the problem was to show that the limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    Jan 10 at 4:37













    2












    $begingroup$

    Evaluation of a limit in step by fashion based on limit laws also proves that the limit exists (or does not exist depending on final outcome).



    The meaning of the first step in your evaluation $$lim_{xto 7}frac{x^2-8x+7}{x-7}=lim_{xto 7}x-1$$ is that the LHS of the above equation exists if and only if the RHS exists. To elaborate further the above statement signifies that the limiting behavior of the function $(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)$ as $xto 7$ is exactly the same as that of function $(x-1)$ so that if one converges (diverges / oscillates) so does the other. Any algebraic manipulation which is valid for $xneq a$ can be used as a reversible step when evaluating the limit of a function $f(x) $ as $xto a$ and your first step is of this kind.



    The second step $$lim_{xto 7}x-1=6$$ uses standard limits $$lim_{xto a} x=a, lim_{xto a} k=k$$ and limit rule dealing with difference of functions and in this step the evaluation of limit is complete.



    In general when one evaluates the limit of a complicated function in step by step manner then one must ensure that each step (except the last one which removes the limit operator) must be unconditionally true / reversible / of type if and only if. Usually this fact is not stated but rather assumed implicitly. And therefore while performing step by step evaluation of a limit there is no need to prove apriori that the limit in question exists.





    Note 1: The use of L'Hospital's Rule is not unconditional / reversible and hence the steps are logically correct only when the method succeeds in giving an answer. If the application of L'Hospital's Rule does not give a definite answer then it does not mean that the original limit does not exist. So when one uses such a technique like L'Hospital's Rule (which works in one direction) then it is better to ensure (via rough work) that it succeeds and then write the step by step evaluation.



    Note 2: The usual limit laws (also known as algebra of limits) as stated in most common textbooks are not reversible (you should see their statements which assume the existence of some limits to conclude the existence / evaluation of related limits). These standard formulations can be replaced by their reversible counterparts which are described in this question.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      Evaluation of a limit in step by fashion based on limit laws also proves that the limit exists (or does not exist depending on final outcome).



      The meaning of the first step in your evaluation $$lim_{xto 7}frac{x^2-8x+7}{x-7}=lim_{xto 7}x-1$$ is that the LHS of the above equation exists if and only if the RHS exists. To elaborate further the above statement signifies that the limiting behavior of the function $(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)$ as $xto 7$ is exactly the same as that of function $(x-1)$ so that if one converges (diverges / oscillates) so does the other. Any algebraic manipulation which is valid for $xneq a$ can be used as a reversible step when evaluating the limit of a function $f(x) $ as $xto a$ and your first step is of this kind.



      The second step $$lim_{xto 7}x-1=6$$ uses standard limits $$lim_{xto a} x=a, lim_{xto a} k=k$$ and limit rule dealing with difference of functions and in this step the evaluation of limit is complete.



      In general when one evaluates the limit of a complicated function in step by step manner then one must ensure that each step (except the last one which removes the limit operator) must be unconditionally true / reversible / of type if and only if. Usually this fact is not stated but rather assumed implicitly. And therefore while performing step by step evaluation of a limit there is no need to prove apriori that the limit in question exists.





      Note 1: The use of L'Hospital's Rule is not unconditional / reversible and hence the steps are logically correct only when the method succeeds in giving an answer. If the application of L'Hospital's Rule does not give a definite answer then it does not mean that the original limit does not exist. So when one uses such a technique like L'Hospital's Rule (which works in one direction) then it is better to ensure (via rough work) that it succeeds and then write the step by step evaluation.



      Note 2: The usual limit laws (also known as algebra of limits) as stated in most common textbooks are not reversible (you should see their statements which assume the existence of some limits to conclude the existence / evaluation of related limits). These standard formulations can be replaced by their reversible counterparts which are described in this question.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Evaluation of a limit in step by fashion based on limit laws also proves that the limit exists (or does not exist depending on final outcome).



        The meaning of the first step in your evaluation $$lim_{xto 7}frac{x^2-8x+7}{x-7}=lim_{xto 7}x-1$$ is that the LHS of the above equation exists if and only if the RHS exists. To elaborate further the above statement signifies that the limiting behavior of the function $(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)$ as $xto 7$ is exactly the same as that of function $(x-1)$ so that if one converges (diverges / oscillates) so does the other. Any algebraic manipulation which is valid for $xneq a$ can be used as a reversible step when evaluating the limit of a function $f(x) $ as $xto a$ and your first step is of this kind.



        The second step $$lim_{xto 7}x-1=6$$ uses standard limits $$lim_{xto a} x=a, lim_{xto a} k=k$$ and limit rule dealing with difference of functions and in this step the evaluation of limit is complete.



        In general when one evaluates the limit of a complicated function in step by step manner then one must ensure that each step (except the last one which removes the limit operator) must be unconditionally true / reversible / of type if and only if. Usually this fact is not stated but rather assumed implicitly. And therefore while performing step by step evaluation of a limit there is no need to prove apriori that the limit in question exists.





        Note 1: The use of L'Hospital's Rule is not unconditional / reversible and hence the steps are logically correct only when the method succeeds in giving an answer. If the application of L'Hospital's Rule does not give a definite answer then it does not mean that the original limit does not exist. So when one uses such a technique like L'Hospital's Rule (which works in one direction) then it is better to ensure (via rough work) that it succeeds and then write the step by step evaluation.



        Note 2: The usual limit laws (also known as algebra of limits) as stated in most common textbooks are not reversible (you should see their statements which assume the existence of some limits to conclude the existence / evaluation of related limits). These standard formulations can be replaced by their reversible counterparts which are described in this question.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Evaluation of a limit in step by fashion based on limit laws also proves that the limit exists (or does not exist depending on final outcome).



        The meaning of the first step in your evaluation $$lim_{xto 7}frac{x^2-8x+7}{x-7}=lim_{xto 7}x-1$$ is that the LHS of the above equation exists if and only if the RHS exists. To elaborate further the above statement signifies that the limiting behavior of the function $(x^2-8x+7)/(x-7)$ as $xto 7$ is exactly the same as that of function $(x-1)$ so that if one converges (diverges / oscillates) so does the other. Any algebraic manipulation which is valid for $xneq a$ can be used as a reversible step when evaluating the limit of a function $f(x) $ as $xto a$ and your first step is of this kind.



        The second step $$lim_{xto 7}x-1=6$$ uses standard limits $$lim_{xto a} x=a, lim_{xto a} k=k$$ and limit rule dealing with difference of functions and in this step the evaluation of limit is complete.



        In general when one evaluates the limit of a complicated function in step by step manner then one must ensure that each step (except the last one which removes the limit operator) must be unconditionally true / reversible / of type if and only if. Usually this fact is not stated but rather assumed implicitly. And therefore while performing step by step evaluation of a limit there is no need to prove apriori that the limit in question exists.





        Note 1: The use of L'Hospital's Rule is not unconditional / reversible and hence the steps are logically correct only when the method succeeds in giving an answer. If the application of L'Hospital's Rule does not give a definite answer then it does not mean that the original limit does not exist. So when one uses such a technique like L'Hospital's Rule (which works in one direction) then it is better to ensure (via rough work) that it succeeds and then write the step by step evaluation.



        Note 2: The usual limit laws (also known as algebra of limits) as stated in most common textbooks are not reversible (you should see their statements which assume the existence of some limits to conclude the existence / evaluation of related limits). These standard formulations can be replaced by their reversible counterparts which are described in this question.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 9 at 18:51

























        answered Jan 9 at 18:41









        Paramanand SinghParamanand Singh

        49.7k556163




        49.7k556163






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3067596%2fassuming-the-existence-of-solutions-in-solving-exercises%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Human spaceflight

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

            File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg