If given \(f(c) = L,\)

(a) should \(\lim_{x \to c} f(x)\) exist?

(b) If the limit is exist, should \(\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L?\)

Prove your answer!

PS:

I don't know how can I prove it. But I know that \(\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L\) exist if and only if \(\lim_{x \to c^+} f(x) = L\) and \(\lim_{x \to c^-} f(x) = L.\) Hence (b) is not true. But then my teacher said that was an incomplete solution. Can anyone help?

No vote yet

7 votes

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewest(a) The function being defined at \(c\) does not mean that the limit is defined at \(c\). For example, given the piecewise function

\[f(x) = \frac{1}{x} (x < 0)\] \[ f(x) = 5 - x(x = 0)\] \[f(x) = sin(\frac{1}{x}) (x > 0)\]

At 0, \(f\) is defined (it equals 5), but the limit does not exist at 0 because the left and right sided limits are unequal (and don't exist).

(b) No. Again, with a piecewise function

\[ f(x) = \frac {x^2}{x} (x < 0)\] \[f(x) = x + 3 (x = 0)\] \[ f(x) = x^2 (x > 0)\]

The limit of this function at 0 is in fact 0 since the left sided limit is 0 as well as the right sided limit. However, when this function is defined at 0, it is not 0, in fact, it is 3.

Accompanying graph: https://i.imgur.com/2Gh4qJF.png

The enclosed red circle indicates \(f(0)\), i.e., what the function is when evaluated at \(0\). However, the empty red circle indicates the limit at 0, i.e., the mutual value that the functions to the left and right side of it are

approaching.Log in to reply

Another example (if you want) of a function like above is: \[ f(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} 2 & \quad x = 0\\ 1 & \quad x \neq 0 \end{array} \right.\]

Even though \( \lim_{x \to 0} f(x) = 1 \), f(0) is 2.

Hmmm I pose a question though. In the original question, the function didn't have to be continuous, but what if it did? If the function is continuous, would the statements above always be true? Would the \( \lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L \) mean that \( f(c) = L \)

for continuous functions?Log in to reply

I believe that's actually one of the definitions of a continuous function. I'm a bit rusty on that though.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Wow, thanks for your quick answer Michael T. I answer the same, saying both questions with no. But I wonder, are there any proof without giving counterexample?

Log in to reply

To know the basics of limits, i suggest u to join a free online course of calculus one on coursera.org

Log in to reply

Then limit must be continuous for limx→cf(x)=L.

Log in to reply