Take the 2-minute tour ×

I understand how to find a limit. I understand the concept of the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition of a limit. Can you walk me through what we're doing in this worked example?

It is from my student solutions manual to my textbook. I need help understanding what we're saying here, and why. I understand the math expressions, but I do not understand why we chose the ones we did, and why and how they prove anything. Can you help?

Find the limit $$ \lim\limits_{x \to 1} \ (x+4) ,$$ and prove it exists using the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition of limit.

By direct substitution, the limit is $5$. Understood. Now, here's where I start to get confused...

Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given.

Choose $\delta = \epsilon$.

$$ 0 < | x-1 | < \delta = \epsilon .$$

$$ | (x+4) - 5 | < \epsilon $$

$$ | f(x) - L | < \epsilon $$


Uh, okay, if you say so... Now, what's going on here line by line and term by term?

share|improve this question
(+1) for verbalizing what so many students struggle with! –  The Chaz 2.0 Apr 17 '12 at 4:46

2 Answers 2

up vote 10 down vote accepted

You want to prove that $\lim\limits_{x\to 1}(x+4) = 5$ using $\epsilon$-$\delta$.

Let $\epsilon\gt 0$. We need to prove that there exists a $\delta\gt 0$ such that

If $0\lt |x-1|\lt \delta$ then $|f(x)-5|\lt \epsilon$.

Now, we want to think a bit: how will the size of $|x-1|$ affect the size of $|f(x)-5|$? Since $f(x)=x+4$, we notice that $|f(x)-5| = |(x+4)-5| = |x-1|$; that is, the size of $|f(x)-5|$ is equal to the size of $|x-1|$. So in order to make sure that $|f(x)-5|\lt \epsilon$, it is enough to require that $|x-1|\lt\delta$.

Thus, we can select $\delta=\epsilon$. Then $\delta\gt 0$, and if $0\lt |x-1|\lt\delta$, then it will follow that $|f(x)-5|\lt\epsilon$.

Thus, for all $\epsilon\gt 0$ there exists a $\delta\gt 0$ (namely, $\delta=\epsilon$) with the property that if $0\lt |x-1|\lt \delta$, then $|f(x)-5|\lt \epsilon$. This proves that $\lim\limits_{x\to 1}f(x) = 5$, as desired. $\Box$

That's what you have, only with lots of words thrown in in-between...

share|improve this answer
The explanatory narrative additions are helpful, Arturo. I've never had formal math language training until now, and it feels like being thrown into the deep end to swim or sink. I appreciate your life preserver here. –  FreeTrader Sep 19 '11 at 17:15
A followup question: What do we call this type of proof, i.e., the method of proof? Is there a name for this kind of proof? Is it correct to say this is a deductive proof? –  FreeTrader Sep 19 '11 at 22:37
@FreeTrader: I would call it "a proof"; we are doing a 'direct proof' in that we are required to prove that if P then Q, and we do so by assuming P and then showing that Q holds. All mathematical proofs are, in a sense, "deductive proofs" in that they use deductive, as opposed to inductive, reasoning (mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning...) –  Arturo Magidin Sep 20 '11 at 0:52
I have been told this is also known as a "proof by construction" since we are showing the truth of our original limit, and then providing a construction that will allow us to generalize it to any epsilon > 0 to produce a workable delta > 0. –  FreeTrader Oct 2 '11 at 5:38
@FreeTrader: "Constructive proof" is more common than "Proof by construction". –  Arturo Magidin Oct 2 '11 at 5:44

I'd like to share a worked example of an epsilon - delta proof of limit found at: http://www.karlscalculus.org/x2_1.html and reproduced here for your convenience. Karl Hahn explains each step of the proof so even a beginner at proofs like can fully understand it.

Worked Example

Prove the following limit:

$$\lim_{x → 2}\frac{2 (x^2 - 4)}{(x - 2)} = 8 \qquad\qquad\text{eq. 2.1x-1}$$

using the delta-epsilon method. Clearly we cannot evaluate this function at $x = 2$ because that would make for a zero denominator.

We recall from algebra that $x^2 - 4$ is the difference of squares and can therefore be readily factored.

$$x^2 - 4 = (x + 2) (x - 2)$$ Let's give the function we are trying to find the limit of a name. Let's call it $f(x)$. So we have:

$$f(x) = \frac{2 (x^2 - 4)}{(x - 2)} = \frac{2 (x + 2) (x - 2)}{(x - 2)} \qquad\qquad\text{eq. 2.1x-2}$$

Clearly at all values of $x$ except $x = 2$ we get a cancellation, and this is the same as: $$f(x) = 2 (x + 2) \qquad\qquad\text{eq. 2.1x-3}$$ So the above holds for any value of $x$ except $2$. That means we can evaluate $f(x)$ using this expression and get the right answer provided x is never equal to 2. So if we prove that: $$\lim_{x → 2} \;\;2 (x + 2) = 8 \qquad\qquad\text{ eq. 2.1x-4}$$

then we have solved the problem. Do you understand why? Remember that all the expressions we have made for $f(x)$ are identical functions for any value of $x$ besides $2$. Taking the limit of $f(x)$ as $x$ goes toward $2$ means never having to evaluate $f(x)$ at $x = 2$. So at all the places we do have to evaluate it, all the forms of $f(x)$ are indeed identical, including $f(x) = 2 (x + 2)$.

Now we get down to the delta-epsilon part of the proof. We have to arrange a scheme by which you can tell me how close $f(x)$ has to be to $8$ (i.e. you give me an $ε$) and based upon that can tell you how close $x$ has to be to $2$ to make it true (i.e. I can give you a $δ$ that makes it true).

Well, let's just set up an equation that shows what happens when we use an x that is within δ of 2.

$$f(2 ± δ) = 2 ( (2 ± δ) + 2) \qquad\qquad\text{ eq. 2.1x-5}$$ Now remembering that $δ$ is always greater than zero (and more importantly it never is zero), we can see that in the above, we still never have to evaluate $f(x)$ at the forbidden value. So we just multiply out the above expression: $$f(2 ± δ) = 8 ± 2 δ \qquad\qquad\text{ eq. 2.1x-6}$$ The requirement is that we have to be able to choose $δ$ so that the value above is no farther from the limit (which in this case is $8$) than the $ε$ that you might give me, no matter how small an $ε$ you do give me. So by giving me an $ε$, you are telling me to make it so that: $$ |f(2 ± δ) - 8| ≤ ε \qquad\qquad\text{eq. 2.1x-7}$$ But we can get an expression for what's inside the absolute value brackets from stuff we have already done. Just take equation 2.1x-6 and subtract $8$ from both sides. If you substitute that in for $2 ± δ$, you get: $$|± 2 δ| ≤ ε \qquad\qquad\text{eq. 2.1x-8}$$ and since the absolute value brackets make the ± sign moot, we have simply: $$ 2 δ ≤ ε \qquad\qquad\text{ eq. 2.1x-9}$$ or
$$δ ≤ \frac{ε}{2} \qquad\qquad\text{eq. 2.1x-10}$$ So, if you hit me with any $ε$, all I have to tell you is to try a $δ$ that is less than or equal to half of your $ε$. In other words we have established a scheme that turns $ε$'s into $δ$'s, and the scheme always gives you a $δ$ that makes the function come within $ε$ of $8$. And that means we're done with the proof.

share|improve this answer
Hopefully I've not changed your intended meaning in making my LaTeX edits. –  Zev Chonoles Sep 22 '11 at 3:46
+1 for an excellent clarifying example found on the Web, Zev! –  Mathemagician1234 Feb 29 '12 at 9:11
Not just the example, but the section on limits at karlscalculus.org/calc2.html is a fine example of how the topic should be introduced to newbies. –  curryage Mar 28 '14 at 6:37

Your Answer


