L IMITS 1.

3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

As we make the time interval smaller and smaller we find that the average velocity is
getting closer and closer to 9.8. We can be a little more precise by finding the average
velocity between t = 1 and t = 1 + h — this is very similar to what we did for tangent
lines.
s (1 + h ) ´ s (1)
average velocity =
(1 + h ) ´ 1
4.9(1 + h)2 ´ 4.9
=
h
9.8h + 4.9h2
=
h
= 9.8 + 4.9h

Now as we squeeze this window between t = 1 and t = 1 + h down towards zero, the
average velocity becomes the “instantaneous velocity” — just as the slope of the secant
line becomes the slope of the tangent line. This is our second limit

s (1 + h ) ´ s (1)
v(1) = lim = 9.8
hÑ0 h

More generally we define the instantaneous velocity at time t = a to be the limit

s( a + h) ´ s( a)
v( a) = lim
hÑ0 h

We read this as
s( a+h)´s( a)
The velocity at time a is equal to the limit as h goes to zero of h .

While we have solved the problem stated at the start of this section, it is clear that if we
wish to solve similar problems that we will need to understand limits in a more general
and systematic way.

1.3 IJ The limit of a function

Before we come to definitions, let us start with a little notation for limits.

Notation 1.3.1.

We will often write

lim f ( x ) = L
xÑa

which should be read as

The limit of f ( x ) as x approaches a is L.

37
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

The notation is just shorthand — we don’t want to have to write out long sentences
as we do our mathematics. Whenever you see these symbols you should think of that
sentence.
This shorthand also has the benefit of being mathematically precise (we’ll see this
later), and (almost) independent of the language in which the author is writing. A mathe-
matician who does not speak English can read the above formula and understand exactly
what it means.
In mathematics, like most languages, there is usually more than one way of writing
things and we can also write the above limit as

f ( x ) Ñ L as x Ñ a

This can also be read as above, but also as

f ( x ) goes to L as x goes to a

They mean exactly the same thing in mathematics, even though they might be written,
read and said a little differently.
To arrive at the definition of limit, I want to start6 with a very simple example.
Example 1.3.2
Consider the following function.
$
&2x
’ xă3
f (x) = 9 x=3
’
2x xą3
%

This is an example of a piece-wise function7 . That is, a function defined in several pieces,
rather than as a single formula. We evaluate the function at a particular value of x on a
case-by-case basis. Here is a sketch of it

Notice the two circles in the plot. One is open, ˝ and the other is closed ‚.

• A filled circle has quite a precise meaning — a filled circle at ( x, y) means that the
function takes the value f ( x ) = y.

6 Well, we had two limits in the previous sections, so perhaps we really want to “restart” with a very
simple example.
7 We saw another piecewise function back in Example 0.4.5.

38
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

• An open circle is a little harder — an open circle at (3, 6) means that the point (3, 6)
is not on the graph of y = f ( x ), i.e. f (3) ‰ 6. We should only use the open circle
where it is absolutely necessary in order to avoid confusion.
This function is quite contrived, but it is a very good example to start working with
limits more systematically. Consider what the function does close to x = 3. We already
know what happens exactly at 3 — f ( x ) = 9 — but I want to look at how the function
behaves very close to x = 3. That is, what does the function do as we look at a point x
that gets closer and closer to x = 3.
If we plug in some numbers very close to 3 (but not exactly 3) into the function we see
the following:

x 2.9 2.99 2.999 ˝ 3.001 3.01 3.1

f (x) 5.8 5.98 5.998 ˝ 6.002 6.02 6.2
So as x moves closer and closer to 3, without being exactly 3, we see that the function
moves closer and closer to 6. We can write this as

lim f ( x ) = 6
xÑ3

That is
The limit as x approaches 3 of f ( x ) is 6.
So for x very close to 3, without being exactly 3, the function is very close to 6 — which
is a long way from the value of the function exactly at 3, f (3) = 9. Note well that the
behaviour of the function as x gets very close to 3 does not depend on the value of the
function at 3.
Example 1.3.2

We now have enough to make an informal definition of a limit, which is actually suffi-
cient for most of what we will do in this text.
Definition 1.3.3 (Informal definition of limit).

We write

lim f ( x ) = L
xÑa

when the value of the function f ( x ) gets closer and closer to L as x gets closer
and closer to a (without8 being exactly a).

8 You may find the condition “without being exactly a” a little strange, but there is a good reason for it.
One very important application of limits, indeed the main reason we teach the topic, is in the definition
of derivatives (see Definition 2.2.1 in the next chapter). In that definition we need to compute the limit
f ( x ) ´ f ( a) f ( x )´ f ( a )
lim . In this case the function whose limit is being taken, namely x´a , is not defined at
xÑa x´a
all at x = a.

39
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

In order to make this definition more mathematically correct, we need to make the idea
of “closer and closer” more precise — we do this in Section 1.7. It should be emphasised
that the formal definition and the contents of that section are optional material.
For now, let us use the above definition to examine a more substantial example.
Example 1.3.4
x´2
Let f ( x ) = x2 + x´6
and consider its limit as x Ñ 2.

• We are really being asked

x´2
lim = what?
xÑ2 x2 +x´6

• Now if we try to compute f (2) we get 0/0 which is undefined. The function is not
defined at that point — this is a good example of why we need limits. We have to
sneak up on these places where a function is not defined (or is badly behaved).

• VERY IMPORTANT POINT: the fraction 00 is not 8 and it is not 1, it is not de-
fined. We cannot ever divide by zero in normal arithmetic and obtain a consistent
and mathematically sensible answer. It you learned otherwise in high-school, you
should quickly unlearn it.

• Again, we can plug in some numbers close to 2 and see what we find

x 1.9 1.99 1.999 ˝ 2.001 2.01 2.1

f (x) 0.20408 0.20040 0.20004 ˝ 0.19996 0.19960 0.19608

• So a reasonable to suppose that

x´2
lim = 0.2
x =2 x 2 +x´6

Example 1.3.4

The previous two examples are nicely behaved in that the limits we tried to compute
actually exist. We now turn to two nastier examples9 in which the limits we are interested
in do not exist.
Example 1.3.5 (A bad example)
Consider the following function f ( x ) = sin(π/x ). Find the limit as x Ñ 0 of f ( x ).
We should see something interesting happening close to x = 0 because f ( x ) is un-
defined there. Using your favourite graph-plotting software you can see that the graph
looks roughly like

9 Actually, they are good examples, but the functions in them are nastier.

40
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

How to explain this? As x gets closer and closer to zero, π/x becomes larger and larger
(remember what the plot of y = 1/x looks like). So when you take sine of that number, it
oscillates faster and faster the closer you get to zero. Since the function does not approach
a single number as we bring x closer and closer to zero, the limit does not exist.
We write this as
π
lim sin does not exist
xÑ0 x
Its not very inventive notation, however it is clear. We frequently abbreviate “does not
exist” to “DNE” and rewrite the above as
π
lim sin = DNE
xÑ0 x

Example 1.3.5

In the following example, the limit we are interested in does not exist. However the
way in which things go wrong is quite different from what we just saw.
Example 1.3.6
Consider the function
$
&x
’ xă2
f ( x ) = ´1 x=2
’
x+3 xą2
%

• The plot of this function looks like this

41
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

• So let us plug in numbers close to 2.

x 1.9 1.99 1.999 ˝ 2.001 2.01 2.1

f (x) 1.9 1.99 1.999 ˝ 5.001 5.01 5.1

• This isn’t like before. Now when we approach from below, we seem to be getting
closer to 2, but when we approach from above we seem to be getting closer to 5.
Since we are not approaching the same number the limit does not exist.

lim f ( x ) = DNE
xÑ2

Example 1.3.6

While the limit in the previous example does not exist, the example serves to introduce
the idea of “one-sided limits”. For example, we can say that
As x moves closer and closer to two from below the function approaches 2.
and similarly
As x moves closer and closer to two from above the function approaches 5.

Definition 1.3.7 (Informal definition of one-sided limits).

We write

lim f ( x ) = K
xÑa´

when the value of f ( x ) gets closer and closer to K when x ă a and x moves
closer and closer to a. Since the x-values are always less than a, we say that x
approaches a from below. This is also often called the left-hand limit since the
x-values lie to the left of a on a sketch of the graph.
We similarly write

lim f ( x ) = L
xÑa+

when the value of f ( x ) gets closer and closer to L when x ą a and x moves closer
and closer to a. For similar reasons we say that x approaches a from above, and
sometimes refer to this as the right-hand limit.

Note — be careful to include the superscript + and ´ when writing these limits. You
might also see the following notations:

lim f ( x ) = lim f ( x ) = lim f ( x ) = lim f ( x ) = L right-hand limit

xÑa+ xÑa+ xÓa xŒa
lim f ( x ) = lim f ( x ) = lim f ( x ) = lim f ( x ) = L left-hand limit
xÑa´ xÑa´ xÒa xÕa

42
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

but please use with the notation in Definition 1.3.7 above.

Given these two similar notions of limits, when are they the same? The following
theorem tell us

Theorem 1.3.8 (Limits and one sided limits).

lim f ( x ) = L if and only if lim f ( x ) = L and lim f ( x ) = L

xÑa xÑa´ xÑa+

Notice that this is really two separate statements because of the “if and only if”

• If the limit of f ( x ) as x approaches a exists and is equal to L, then both the left-hand
and right-hand limits exist and are equal to L. AND,

• If the left-hand and right-hand limits as x approaches a exist and are equal, then the
limit as x approaches a exists and is equal to the one-sided limits.

That is — the limit of f ( x ) as x approaches a will only exist if it doesn’t matter which way
we approach a (either from left or right) AND if we get the same one-sided limits when
we approach from left and right, then the limit exists.
We can rephrase the above by writing the contrapositive10 of the statements

• If either of the left-hand and right-hand limits as x approaches a fail to exist, or if

they both exist but are different, then the limit as x approaches a does not exist.
AND,

• If the limit as x approaches a does not exist, then the left-hand and right-hand limits
are either different or at least one of them does not exist.

Here is another limit example

Example 1.3.9
Consider the following two functions and compute their limits and one-sided limits as x
approaches 1:

10 Given a statement of the form “If A then B” the contrapositive is “If not B then not A”. They are logically
equivalent — if one is true then so is the other. We must take care not to confuse the contrapositive with
the converse. Given “If A then B” then converse is “If B then A”. These are definitely not the same.
To see this consider the statement “If he is Shakespeare then he is dead.” The converse is “If he is
dead then he is Shakespeare” — clearly garbage since there are plenty of dead people who are not
Shakespeare. The contrapositive is “If he is not dead then he is not Shakespeare” — which makes much
more sense.

43
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

These are a little different from our previous examples, in that we do not have formulas,
only the sketch. But we can still compute the limits.
• Function on the left — f ( x ):
lim f ( x ) = 2 lim f ( x ) = 2
xÑ1´ xÑ1+
so by the previous theorem
lim f ( x ) = 2
xÑ1

• Function on the right — g(t):

lim g(t) = 2 and lim g(t) = ´2
tÑ1´ tÑ1+
so by the previous theorem
lim g(t) = DNE
tÑ1

Example 1.3.9

We have seen 2 ways in which a limit does not exist — in one case the function oscil-
lated wildly, and in the other there was some sort of “jump” in the function, so that the
left-hand and right-hand limits were different.
There is a third way that we must also consider. To describe this, consider the following
four functions:

Figure 1.3.1.

44
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

None of these functions are defined at x = a, nor do the the limits as x approaches a
exist. However we can say more than just “the limits do no exist”.
Notice that the value of function 1 can be made bigger and bigger as we bring x closer
and closer to a. Similarly the value of the second function can be made arbitrarily large
and negative (i.e. make it as big a negative number as we want) by bringing x closer and
closer to a. Based on this observation we have the following definition.

Definition 1.3.10.

We write

lim f ( x ) = +8
xÑa

when the value of the function f ( x ) becomes arbitrarily large and positive as x
gets closer and closer to a, without being exactly a.
Similarly, we write

lim f ( x ) = ´8
xÑa

when the value of the function f ( x ) becomes arbitrarily large and negative as x
gets closer and closer to a, without being exactly a.

A good examples of the above is

1 1
lim = +8 lim ´ = ´8
xÑ0 x 2 xÑ0 x2

IMPORTANT POINT: Please do not think of “+8” and “´8” in these statements as
numbers. The statement

lim f ( x ) = +8
xÑa

does not say “the limit of f ( x ) as x approaches a is positive infinity. It says “the func-
tion f ( x ) becomes arbitrarily large as x approaches a”. These are different statements.
Remember that 8 is not a number11 .
Now consider functions 3 and 4 in Figure 1.3.1. Here we can make the value of the
function as big and positive as we want (for function 3) or as big and negative as we want
(for function 4) but only when x approaches a from one side. With this in mind we can
construct similar notation and a similar definition:

11 One needs to be very careful making statements about infinity. At some point in our lives we get around
to asking ourselves “what is the biggest number”, and we realise there isn’t one. That is, we can go on
counting integer after integer, for ever and not stop. Indeed the set of integers is the first infinite thing
we really encounter. It is an example of a countably infinite set. The set of real-numbers is actually much
bigger and is uncountably infinite. In fact there are an infinite number of different sorts of infinity! Much
of the theory of infinite sets was developed by Georg Cantor; we mentioned him back in Section 0.2
and he is well worth googling.

45
L IMITS 1.3 T HE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION

Definition 1.3.11.

We write

lim f ( x ) = +8
xÑa+

when the value of the function f ( x ) becomes arbitrarily large and positive as x
gets closer and closer to a from above (equivalently — from the right), without
being exactly a.
Similarly, we write

lim f ( x ) = ´8
xÑa+

when the value of the function f ( x ) becomes arbitrarily large and negative as x
gets closer and closer to a from above (equivalently — from the right), without
being exactly a.
The notation

lim f ( x ) = +8 lim f ( x ) = ´8
xÑa´ xÑa´

has a similar meaning except that limits are approached from below / from the
left.

So for function 3 we have

lim f ( x ) = +8 lim f ( x ) = some positive number

xÑa´ xÑa+

and for function 4

lim f ( x ) = some positive number lim f ( x ) = ´8

xÑa´ xÑa+

More examples:

Example 1.3.12
Consider the function

1
g( x ) =
sin( x )

Find the one-sided limits of this function as x Ñ π.

Probably the easiest way to do this is to first plot the graph of sin( x ) and 1/x and then
think carefully about the one-sided limits:

46
 L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

• As x Ñ π from the left, sin( x ) is a small positive number that is getting closer and
closer to zero. That is, as x Ñ π ´ , we have that sin( x ) Ñ 0 through positive numbers
(i.e. from above). Now look at the graph of 1/x, and think what happens as we move
x Ñ 0+ , the function is positive and becomes larger and larger.
So as x Ñ π from the left, sin( x ) Ñ 0 from above, and so 1/ sin( x ) Ñ +8.

• By very similar reasoning, as x Ñ π from the right, sin( x ) is a small negative number
that gets closer and closer to zero. So as x Ñ π from the right, sin( x ) Ñ 0 through
negative numbers (i.e. from below) and so 1/ sin( x ) to ´8.

Thus
1 1
lim = +8 lim = ´8
xÑπ ´ sin( x ) xÑπ + sin( x )

Example 1.3.12

Again, we can make Definitions 1.3.10 and 1.3.11 into mathematically precise formal
definitions using techniques very similar to those in the optional Section 1.7. This is not
strictly necessary for this course.
Up to this point we explored limits by sketching graphs or plugging values into a cal-
culator. This was done to help build intuition, but it is not really the basis of a systematic
method for computing limits. We have also avoided more formal approaches12 since we
do not have time in the course to go into that level of detail and (arguably) we don’t need
that detail to achieve the aims of the course. Thankfully we can develop a more system-
atic approach based on the idea of building up complicated limits from simpler one by
examining how limits interact with the basic operations of arithmetic.

1.4 IJ Calculating limits with limit laws

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

12 The formal approaches are typically referred to as “epsilon-delta limits” or “epsilon-delta proofs” since
the symbols e and δ are traditionally used throughout. Take a peek at Section 1.7 to see.

47
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

• constants — c
• monomials — x n
• trigonometric functions — sin( x ), cos( x ) and tan( x )
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.
We then take these building blocks and piece them together using arithmetic
• addition and subtraction — f ( x ) = g( x ) + h( x ) and f ( x ) = g( x ) ´ h( x )
• multiplication — f ( x ) = g( x ) ¨ h( x )
g( x )
• division — f ( x ) = h( x )

• substitution — f ( x ) = g(h( x )) — this is also called the composition of g with h.

The idea of building up complicated functions from simpler pieces was discussed in Sec-
tion 0.5.
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 “e ´ δ 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.
For example, polynomials do not have any nasty jumps and are defined everywhere
and do not “blow up”. If you plot them, they look smooth13 . Polynomials and limits
behave very nicely together, and for any polynomial P( x ) and any real number a we have
that
lim P( x ) = P( a)
xÑa
That is — to evaluate the limit we just plug in the number. We will build up to this result
over the next few pages.
Let us start with the two easiest limits14
Theorem 1.4.1 (Easiest limits).

Let a, c P R. The following two limits hold

lim c = c and lim x = a.

xÑa xÑa

13 We have used this term in an imprecise way, but it does have a precise mathematical meaning.
14 Though it lies outside the scope of the course, you can find the formal e-δ proof of this result at the end
of Section 1.7.

48
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Since we have not seen too many theorems yet, let us examine it carefully piece by
piece.

• Let a, c P 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.

• The following two limits hold — this doesn’t really contribute much to the state-
ment of the theorem, it just makes it easier to read.

• lim c = c — when we take the limit of a constant function (for example think of
xÑa
c = 3), the limit is (unsurprisingly) just that same constant.

• lim x = a — as we noted above for general polynomials, the limit of the function
xÑa
f ( x ) = x as x approaches a given point a, is just a. This says something quite obvious
— as x approaches a, 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

2x ´ 3
h( x ) =
x2 + 5x ´ 6
If we want to compute the value of the function at x = 2, then we would

• compute the numerator at x = 2

• compute the denominator at x = 2

• compute the ratio

Now to compute the numerator we

• take x and multiply it by 2

• subtract 3 to the result

While for the denominator

• multiply x by x

• multiply x by 5

• add these two numbers and subtract 6

This sequence of operations can be represented pictorially as the tree shown in Figure 1.4.1
below.

49
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Figure 1.4.1.

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.

To compute the limit of the above function at x = 2 we can do something very similar.
From the previous theorem we know how to compute

lim c = c and lim x = 2

xÑ2 xÑ2

and the next theorem will tell us how to stitch together these two limits using the arith-
metic we used to construct the function.

50
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Theorem 1.4.2 (Arithmetic of limits).

Let a, c P R, 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).

lim f ( x ) = F lim g( x ) = G
xÑa xÑa

exist with F, G P R. Then the following limits hold

• lim ( f ( x ) + g( x )) = F + G — limit of the sum is the sum of the limits.

xÑa

• lim ( f ( x ) ´ g( x )) = F ´ G — limit of the difference is the difference of the

xÑa
limits.

• lim c f ( x ) = cF.
xÑa

• lim ( f ( x ) ¨ g( x )) = F ¨ G — limit of the product is the product of limits.

xÑa

f (x) F
• If G ‰ 0 then lim =
xÑa g( x ) G
Note — be careful with this last one — the denominator cannot be zero.

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.
How do we apply the above theorem to the rational function h( x ) we defined above?
Here is a warm-up example:
Example 1.4.3
You are given two functions f , g (not explicitly) which have the following limits as x ap-
proaches 1:
lim f ( x ) = 3 and lim g( x ) = 2
xÑ1 xÑ1

Using the above theorem we can compute

lim 3 f ( x ) = 3 ˆ 3 = 9
xÑ1
lim 3 f ( x ) ´ g( x ) = 3 ˆ 3 ´ 2 = 7
xÑ1
lim f ( x ) g( x ) = 3 ˆ 2 = 6
xÑ1
f (x) 3
lim = =3
xÑ1 f ( x ) ´ g( x ) 3´2

Example 1.4.3

51
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Another simple example

Example 1.4.4
Find lim 4x2 ´ 1
xÑ3
We use the arithmetic of limits:
 
2 2
lim 4x ´ 1 = lim 4x ´ lim 1 difference of limits
xÑ3 xÑ3 xÑ3
 
2
= lim 4 ¨ lim x ´ lim 1 product of limits
xÑ3 xÑ3 xÑ3
 
= 4 ¨ lim x2 ´ 1 limit of constant
xÑ3
   
= 4 ¨ lim x ¨ lim x ´ 1 product of limits
xÑ3 xÑ3
= 4¨3¨3´1 limit of x
= 36 ´ 1
= 35

Example 1.4.4
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.
Example 1.4.5
x
Yet another limit — compute lim .
xÑ2 x ´ 1
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:

lim x = 2 limit of x
xÑ2

and now the denominator:

   
lim x ´ 1 = lim x ´ lim 1 difference of limits
xÑ2 xÑ2 xÑ2
= 2´1 limit of x and limit of constant = 1

Since the limit of the denominator is non-zero we can put it back together to get

lim x
x xÑ2
lim =
xÑ2 x ´ 1 lim ( x ´ 1)
xÑ2
2
=
1
=2

52
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Example 1.4.5

In the next example we show that many different things can happen if the limit of the
denominator is zero.
Example 1.4.6 (Be careful with limits of ratios)
We must be careful when computing the limit of a ratio — it is the ratio of the limits ex-
cept when the limit of the denominator is zero. When the limit of the denominator is zero
Theorem 1.4.2 does 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

f (x)
lim = DNE when lim f ( x ) ‰ 0 and lim g( x ) = 0
xÑa g( x ) xÑa xÑa

1
For example, lim = DNE.
xÑ0 x2

• 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

x 1
– the limit does not exist, eg. lim 2
= lim = DNE
xÑ0 x xÑ0 x

x2 1 ´x2 ´1
– the limit is ˘8, eg. lim 4
= lim 2
= + 8 or lim 4
= lim 2 = ´8.
xÑ0 x xÑ0 x xÑ0 x xÑ0 x

x2
– the limit is zero, eg. lim =0
xÑ0 x
x
– the limit exists and is non-zero, eg. lim =1
xÑ0 x

Now while the above examples are very simple and a little contrived they serve to illus-
trate the point we are trying to make — be careful if the limit of the denominator is zero.

Example 1.4.6

We now have enough theory to return to our rational function and compute its limit
as x approaches 2.

Example 1.4.7
2x ´ 3
Let h( x ) = 2 and find its limit as x approaches 2.
x + 5x ´ 6

53
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Since this is the limit of a ratio, we compute the limit of the numerator and denomina-
tor separately. Numerator first:
   
lim 2x ´ 3 = lim 2x ´ lim 3 difference of limits
xÑ2 xÑ2 xÑ2
 
= 2 ¨ lim x ´ 3 product of limits and limit of constant
xÑ2
= 2¨2´3 limits of x
=1

Denominator next:
     
2 2
lim x + 5x ´ 6 = lim x + lim 5x ´ lim 6 sum of limits
xÑ2 xÑ2 xÑ2 xÑ2
     
= lim x ¨ lim x + 5 ¨ lim x ´ 6 product of limits and limit of constant
xÑ2 xÑ2 xÑ2
= 2¨2+5¨2´6 limits of x
=8

Since the limit of the denominator is non-zero, we can obtain our result by taking the ratio
of the separate limits.

lim 2x ´ 3
2x ´ 3 xÑ2 1
lim 2 = 2
=
xÑ2 x + 5x ´ 6 lim x + 5x ´ 6 8
xÑ2

The above works out quite simply. However, if we were to take the limit as x Ñ 1 then
things are a bit harder. The limit of the numerator is:

lim 2x ´ 3 = 2 ¨ 1 ´ 3 = ´1
xÑ1

(we have not listed all the steps). And the limit of the denominator is

lim x2 + 5x ´ 6 = 1 ¨ 1 + 5 ´ 6 = 0
xÑ1

Since the limit of the numerator is non-zero, while the limit of the denominator is zero,
the limit of the ratio does not exist.
2x ´ 3
lim = DNE
xÑ2 x2 + 5x ´ 6

Example 1.4.7
It is IMPORTANT TO NOTE that it is not correct to write
2x ´ 3 ´1
lim = = DNE
xÑ2 x2 + 5x ´ 6 0

54
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Because we can only write

f (x) lim f ( x )
lim = xÑa = something
xÑa g( x ) lim g( x )
xÑa

when the limit of the denominator is non-zero (see Example 1.4.6 above).
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:

Theorem 1.4.8 (More arithmetic of limits — powers and roots).

Let n be a positive integer, let a P R and let f be a function so that

lim f ( x ) = F
xÑa

for some real number F. Then the following holds

 n
n
lim ( f ( x )) = lim f ( x ) = F n
xÑa xÑa

so that the limit of a power is the power of the limit. Similarly, if

• n is an even number and F ą 0, or

• n is and odd number and F is any real number

then
 1/n
lim ( f ( x ))1/n = lim f ( x ) = F1/n
xÑa xÑa

Notice that we have to be careful when taking roots of limits that might be negative
numbers. To see why, consider the case n = 2, the limit

lim x1/2 = 41/2 = 2

xÑ4
lim (´x )1/2 = (´4)1/2 = not a real number
xÑ4

In order to evaluate such limits properly we need to use complex numbers which are
beyond the scope of this text.
Also note that the notation x1/2 refers to the positive square root of x. While 2 and (´2)
are both square-roots of 4, the notation 41/2 means 2. This is something we must be careful
of15 .
So again — let us do a few examples and carefully note what we are doing.

15 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.

55
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Example 1.4.9

 1/3
2 1/3 2
lim (4x ´ 3) = ( lim 4x ) ´ ( lim 3)
xÑ2 xÑ2 xÑ2
 1/3
= 4 ¨ 22 ´ 3
= (16 ´ 3)1/3
= 131/3

Example 1.4.9

By combining the last few theorems we can make the evaluation of limits of polyno-
mials and rational functions much easier:

Theorem 1.4.10 (Limits of polynomials and rational functions).

Let a P R, let P( x ) be a polynomial and let R( x ) be a rational function. Then

lim P( x ) = P( a)
xÑa

and provided R( x ) is defined at x = a then

lim R( x ) = R( a)
xÑa

If R( x ) is not defined at x = a then we are not able to apply this result.

So the previous examples are now much easier to compute:

2x ´ 3 4´3 1
lim = =
xÑ2 x 2 + 5x ´ 6 4 + 10 ´ 6 8

lim (4x2 ´ 1) = 16 ´ 1 = 15
xÑ2
x 2
lim = = 2
xÑ2 x ´ 1 2´1

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.

56
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Example 1.4.11
Consider the limit

x3 ´ x2
lim .
xÑ1 x ´ 1

If we try to apply the arithmetic of limits then we compute the limits of the numerator
and denominator separately

lim x3 ´ x2 = 1 ´ 1 = 0 (1.4.1)
xÑ1
lim x ´ 1 = 1 ´ 1 = 0 (1.4.2)
xÑ1

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 some-
thing we can cancel.
So let us play with the expression a little more before we take the limit:

x3 ´ x2 x 2 ( x ´ 1)
= = x2 provided x ‰ 1.
x´1 x´1

So what we really have here is the following function

#
x3 ´ x2 x2 x‰1
=
x´1 undefined x=1

If we plot the above function the graph looks exactly the same as y = x2 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 Ñ a, 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. So for the above
problem we can write

x3 ´ x2
= x2 when x is close to 1 but not at x = 1
x´1

57
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

So the limit as x Ñ 1 of the function is the same as the limit lim x2 since the functions are
xÑ1
the same except exactly at x = 1. By this reasoning we get

x3 ´ x2
lim = lim x2 = 1
xÑ1 x ´ 1 xÑ1

Example 1.4.11
The reasoning in the above example can be made more general:

Theorem 1.4.12.

If f ( x ) = g( x ) except when x = a then lim f ( x ) = lim g( x ) provided the limit of

xÑa xÑa
g exists.

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 00 . We know that 00 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).
Example 1.4.13
Using this idea compute

(1 + h )2 ´ 1
lim
hÑ0 h

• First we should check that we cannot just substitute h = 0 into this — clearly we
cannot because the denominator would be 0.

• But we should also check the numerator to see if we have 00 , and we see that the
numerator gives us 1 ´ 1 = 0.

• Thus we have a hint that there is a common factor that we might be able to cancel.
So now we look for the common factor and try to cancel it.

(1 + h )2 ´ 1 1 + 2h + h2 ´ 1
= expand
h h
2h + h 2 h (2 + h )
= = factor and then cancel
h h
= 2+h

• Thus we really have that

#
(1 + h )2
´1 2+h h‰0
=
h undefined h=0

58
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

and because of this

(1 + h )2 ´ 1
lim = lim 2 + h
hÑ0 h hÑ0
=2

Example 1.4.13
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.
Example 1.4.14
Compute the following limit:

(1 + h )2 ´ 1
lim
hÑ0 h
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

(1 + h )2 ´ 1 1 + 2h + h2 ´ 1
lim = lim
hÑ0 h hÑ0 h
= lim 2 + h
hÑ0
=2

Example 1.4.14
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
Example 1.4.15
Compute the following limit:

(1 + h )2 ´ 1
lim
hÑ0 h
Numerator and denominator both go to zero as h Ñ 0. So factor and simplify:

(1 + h )2 ´ 1 1 + 2h + h2 ´ 1
lim = lim
hÑ0 h hÑ0 h
= lim 2 + h = 2
hÑ0

Example 1.4.15

59
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

A slightly harder one now

Example 1.4.16
Compute the limit
x
lim ?
xÑ0 1 + x ´ 1

If we try to use the arithmetic of limits we get

lim x = 0
xÑ0
? b
lim 1 + x ´ 1 = lim 1 + x ´ 1 = 1 ´ 1 = 0
xÑ0 xÑ0

So doing the naive thing we’d get 0/0. This suggests a common factor that can be can-
celled. Since the numerator and denominator ? are not polynomials we have to try other
tricks16 . We can simplify the denominator 1 + ? x ´ 1 a lot, and in particular eliminate
the square root, by multiplying it by its conjugate 1 + x + 1.
?
x x 1+x+1 conjugate
? =? ˆ? multiply by =1
1+x´1 1+x´1 1+x+1 conjugate
?

x 1+x+1
= ?
?
bring things together
1+x´1 1+x+1
?

x 1+x+1
= ?
2 since ( a ´ b)( a + b) = a2 ´ b2
1+x ´1¨1
?

x 1+x+1
= clean up a little
1+x´1

?
x 1+x+1
=
? x
= 1+x+1 cancel the x

So now we have
x ?
lim ? = lim 1 + x + 1
xÑ0 1 + x ´ 1 xÑ0
?
= 1+0+1 = 2

16 While these tricks are useful (and even cute17 ), Taylor polynomials (see Section 3.4) give us a more
systematic way of approaching this problem.
17 Mathematicians tend to have quite strong opinions on the beauty of mathematics. For example, Paul
Erdös18 said “Why are numbers beautiful? It’s like asking why is Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony beauti-
ful. If you don’t see why, someone can’t tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren’t beautiful,
nothing is.”.
18 Arguably the most prolific mathematician of the 20th century — definitely worth a google. The authors
do not know his opinion on nested footnotes19 .
19 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.

60
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Example 1.4.16
How did we know what to multiply by? Our function was of the form
a
?
b´c
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
a a
? =? ¨1
b´c b´c ?
a b+c
=? ¨?
b´c b+c
loomoon
=1
? 
a b+c
= ?  ?  expand denominator carefully
b´c b+c
? 
a b+c
=? ? ? ? do some cancellation
b
?¨ b ´ c
 b + c b´c¨c
a b+c
=
b ´ c2
Now the numerator contains roots, but the denominator is just a polynomial.
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.
Sometimes one is presented with an unpleasant ugly function such as

f ( x ) = x2 sin(π/x )

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

lim x2 sin(π/x )?
xÑ0

Since it is the product of two functions, we might try

   
2 2
lim x sin(π/x ) = lim x ¨ lim sin(π/x )
xÑ0 xÑ0 xÑ0
 
= 0 ¨ lim sin(π/x )
xÑ0
=0

61
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

But we just cheated — we cannot use the arithmetic of limits theorem here, because the
limit

lim sin(π/x ) = DNE

xÑ0

does not exist. Now we did see the function sin(π/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 x2 and sin(π/x ). We have sketched the two functions in the figure
on the left below.

Figure 1.4.2.

While x2 is a very well behaved function and we know quite a lot about it, the function
sin(π/x ) is quite ugly. One of the few things we can say about it is the following

´1 ď sin(π/x ) ď 1 provided x ‰ 0

But if we multiply this expression by x2 we get (because x2 ě 0)

´x2 ď x2 sin(π/x ) ď x2 provided x ‰ 0

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 x2 and ´x2 .
If we focus in on the picture close to x = 0 we see that x approaches 0, the functions
x and ´x2 both approach 0. Further, because x2 sin(π/x ) is sandwiched between them,
2

it seems that it also approaches 0.

The following theorem tells us that this is indeed the case:

62
L IMITS 1.4 C ALCULATING LIMITS WITH LIMIT LAWS

Theorem 1.4.17 (Squeeze theorem (or sandwich theorem or pinch theorem)).

Let a P R and let f , g, h be three functions so that

f ( x ) ď g( x ) ď h( x )

for all x in an interval around a, except possibly exactly at x = a. Then if

lim f ( x ) = lim h( x ) = L
xÑa xÑa

then it is also the case that

lim g( x ) = L
xÑa

Using the above theorem we can compute the limit we want and write it up nicely
Example 1.4.18
Compute the limit
lim x2 sin(π/x )
xÑ0

Since ´1 ď sin(θ ) ď 1 for all real numbers θ, we have

´1 ď sin(π/x ) ď 1 for all x ‰ 0
Multiplying the above by x2 we see that
´x2 ď x2 sin(π/x ) ď x2 for all x ‰ 0
Since lim x2 = lim (´x2 ) = 0 by the sandwich (or squeeze or pinch) theorem we have
xÑ0 xÑ0

lim x2 sin(π/x ) = 0
xÑ0

Example 1.4.18
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.
Another sandwich theorem example
Example 1.4.19
Let f ( x ) be a function such that 1 ď f ( x ) ď x2 ´ 2x + 2. What is lim f ( x )?
xÑ1
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:
lim 1 = 1
xÑ1
lim x2 ´ 2x + 2 = 1 ´ 2 + 2 = 1
xÑ1

63
 L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

So we see that the function f ( x ) is trapped between two functions that both approach 1 as
x Ñ 1. Hence by the sandwich / pinch / squeeze theorem, we know that

lim f ( x ) = 1
xÑ1

Example 1.4.19

1.5 IJ Limits at infinity

Up until this point we have discussed what happens to a function as we move its input x
closer and closer to a particular point a. For a great many applications of limits we need
to understand what happens to a function when its input becomes extremely large — for
example what happens to a population at a time far in the future.
The definition of a limit at infinity has a similar flavour to the definition of limits at
finite points that we saw above, but the details are a little different. We also need to
distinguish between positive and negative infinity. As x becomes very large and positive it
moves off towards +8 but when it becomes very large and negative it moves off towards
´8.
Again we give an informal definition; the full formal definition can be found in (the
optional) Section 1.8 near the end of this chapter.

Definition 1.5.1 (Limits at infinity — informal).

We write

lim f ( x ) = L
xÑ8

when the value of the function f ( x ) gets closer and closer to L as we make x
larger and larger and positive.
Similarly we write

lim f ( x ) = L
xÑ´8

when the value of the function f ( x ) gets closer and closer to L as we make x
larger and larger and negative.

Example 1.5.2
Consider the two functions depicted below

64
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

The dotted horizontal lines indicate the behaviour as x becomes very large. The function
on the left has limits as x Ñ 8 and as x Ñ ´8 since the function “settles down” to a
particular value. On the other hand, the function on the right does not have a limit as
x Ñ ´8 since the function just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Example 1.5.2

Just as was the case for limits as x Ñ a we will start with two very simple building
blocks and build other limits from those.

Theorem 1.5.3.

Let c P R then the following limits hold

lim c = c lim c = c
xÑ8 xÑ´8
1 1
lim =0 lim =0
xÑ8 x xÑ´8 x

Again, these limits interact nicely with standard arithmetic:

65
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

Theorem 1.5.4 (Arithmetic of limits at infinity).

Let f ( x ), g( x ) be two functions for which the limits

lim f ( x ) = F lim g( x ) = G
xÑ8 xÑ8

exist. Then the following limits hold

lim f ( x ) ˘ g( x ) = F ˘ G
xÑ8
lim f ( x ) g( x ) = FG
xÑ8
f (x) F
lim = provided G ‰ 0
xÑ8 g( x ) G

and for rational numbers r

lim f ( x )r = Fr provided f ( x )r is defined for all x

xÑ8

The analogous results hold for limits to ´8.

Note that, as was the case in Theorem 1.4.8, we need a little extra care with powers of
functions. We must avoid taking square roots of negative numbers, or indeed any even
root of a negative number20 .
Hence we have for all rational r ą 0
1
lim =0
xÑ8 x r

but we have to be careful with

1
lim =0
xÑ´8 x r

This is only true if the denominator of r is not an even number21 .

For example
1 1
• lim = 0, but lim does not exist, because x1/2 is not defined for x ă 0.
xÑ8 x 1/2 xÑ´8 x 1/2

1
• On the other hand, x4/3 is defined for negative values of x and lim = 0.
xÑ´8 x4/3
Our first application of limits at infinity will be to examine the behaviour of a rational
function for very large x. To do this we use a “trick”.

20 To be more precise, there is no real number x so that xeven power is a negative number. Hence we cannot
take the even-root of a negative number and express it as a real number. This is precisely what complex
numbers allow us to do, but alas there is not space in the course for us to explore them.
p 6
21 where we write r = q with p, q integers with no common factors. For example, r = 14 should be written
3
as r = 7 when considering this rule.

66
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

Example 1.5.5
Compute the following limit:

x2 ´ 3x + 4
lim
xÑ8 3x2 + 8x + 1

As x becomes very large, it is the x2 term that will dominate in both the numerator and
denominator and the other bits become irrelevant. That is, for very large x, x2 is much
much larger than x or any constant. So we pull out these dominant parts
 
x 2 1´ 3 + 4
x2 ´ 3x + 4 x x2
2
=  
3x + 8x + 1 x2 3 + 8x + x12
3 4
1´ x + x2
= 8 1
remove the common factors
3+ x + x2

x2 ´ 3x + 4 1 ´ 3x + x42
lim = lim
xÑ8 3x 2 + 8x + 1 xÑ8 3 + 8 + 1
2
 x x 
3 4
lim 1 ´ + 2
xÑ8 x x
=   arithmetic of limits
8 1
lim 3 + + 2
xÑ8 x x
3 4
lim 1 ´ lim + lim 2
xÑ8 x xÑ8 x
= xÑ8 more arithmetic of limits
8 1
lim 3 + lim + lim 2
xÑ8 xÑ8 x xÑ8 x
1+0+0 1
= =
3+0+0 3

Example 1.5.5

The following one gets a little harder

Example 1.5.6
?
2
4x +1
Find the limit as x Ñ 8 of 5x´1
We use the same trick — try to work out what is the biggest term in the numerator and
denominator and pull it to one side.

• The denominator is dominated by 5x.

• The biggest contribution to the numerator comes from the 4x2 inside the square-
2
? x outside the square-root it becomes x, so the numerator is
root. When we pull
dominated by x ¨ 4 = 2x

67
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

• To see this more explicitly rewrite the numerator

a b ? a a
4x2 + 1 = x2 (4 + 1/x2 ) = x2 4 + 1/x2 = x 4 + 1/x2 .

• Thus the limit as x Ñ 8 is

? a
4x2 + 1 x 4 + 1/x2
lim = lim
xÑ8 5x ´ 1 xÑ8 x (5 ´ 1/x )
a
4 + 1/x2
= lim
xÑ8 5 ´ 1/x
2
=
5

Example 1.5.6
?
4x +1 2
Now let us also think about the limit of the same function, 5x´1 , as x Ñ ´8. There
is something a subtle going on because of the square-root. First consider the function22
?
h ( t ) = t2
Evaluating this at t = 7 gives
? ?
h (7) = 72 = 49 = 7
?
We’ll get much the same thing for any t ě 0. For any t ě 0, h(t) = t2 returns exactly t.
However now consider the function at t = ´3
b ?
h(´3) = (´3)2 = 9 = 3 = ´(´3)
that is the function is returning ´1 times the input.
?
This is because when we defined , we defined it to be the positive square-root. i.e.
?
the function t can never return a negative number. So being more careful
?
h(t) = t2 = |t|
Where the |t| is the absolute value of t. You are perhaps used to thinking of absolute value
as “remove the minus sign”, but this is not quite correct. Lets sketch the function

Figure 1.5.1.

22 Just to change things up lets use t and h(t) instead of the ubiquitous x and f ( x ).

68
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

It is a piecewise function defined by

#
x xě0
|x| =
´x xă0

Hence our function h(t) is really

#
? t tě0
h(t) = t2 =
´t tă0

So that when we evaluate h(´7) it is

b ?
h(´7) = (´7)2 = 49 = 7 = ´(´7)

We are now ready to examine the limit as x Ñ ´8 in our previous example. Mostly it is
copy and paste from above.
Example 1.5.7
?
2
4x +1
Find the limit as x Ñ ´8 of 5x´1
We use the same trick — try to work out what is the biggest term in the numerator and
denominator and pull it to one side. Since we are taking the limit as x Ñ ´8 we should
think of x as a large negative number.
• The denominator is dominated by 5x.
• The biggest contribution to the numerator comes from the 4x2 inside the square-root.
When we pull the x2 outside a square-root it becomes |x| = ´x
? (since we are taking
the limit as x Ñ ´8), so the numerator is dominated by ´x ¨ 4 = ´2x
• To see this more explicitly rewrite the numerator
a b ? a
4x + 1 = x2 (4 + 1/x2 ) = x2 4 + 1/x2
2
a
= |x| 4 + 1/x2 and since x ă 0 we have
a
= ´x 4 + 1/x2

• Thus the limit as x Ñ ´8 is

? a
4x2 + 1 ´x 4 + 1/x2
lim = lim
xÑ´8 5x ´ 1 xÑ´8 x (5 ´ 1/x )
a
´ 4 + 1/x2
= lim
xÑ´8 5 ´ 1/x
2
=´
5

Example 1.5.7
So the limit as x Ñ ´8 is almost the same but we gain a minus sign. This is definitely
not the case in general — you have to think about each example separately.
Here is a sketch of the function in question.

69
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

Figure 1.5.2.

Example 1.5.8
Compute the following limit:
 
lim x7/5 ´ x
xÑ8

In this case we cannot use the arithmetic of limits to write this as

     
7/5 7/5
lim x ´ x = lim x ´ lim x
xÑ8 xÑ8 xÑ8
= 8´8
because the limits do not exist. We can only use the limit laws when the limits exist. So
we should go back and think some more.
When x is very large, x7/5 = x ¨ x2/5 will be much larger than x, so the x7/5 term will
dominate the x term. So factor out x7/5 and rewrite it as
 
7/5 7/5 1
x ´x = x 1 ´ 2/5
x
Consider what happens to each of the factors as x Ñ 8
• For large x, x7/5 ą x (this is actually true for any x ą 1). In the limit as x Ñ +8,
x becomes arbitrarily large and positive, and x7/5 must be bigger still, so it follows
that
lim x7/5 = +8.
xÑ8

• On the other hand, (1 ´ x´2/5 ) becomes closer and closer to 1 — we can use the
arithmetic of limits to write this as
lim (1 ´ x´2/5 ) = lim 1 ´ lim x´2/5 = 1 ´ 0 = 1
xÑ8 xÑ8 xÑ8

So the product of these two factors will be come larger and larger (and positive) as x
moves off to infinity. Hence we have
 
lim x7/5 1 ´ 1/x2/5 = +8
xÑ8

70
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

Example 1.5.8
But remember +8 and ´8 are not numbers; the last equation in the example is shorthand
for “the function becomes arbitrarily large”.

In the previous section we saw that finite limits and arithmetic interact very nicely (see
Theorems 1.4.2 and 1.4.8). This enabled us to compute the limits of more complicated
function in terms of simpler ones. When limits of functions go to plus or minus infinity
we are quite a bit more restricted in what we can deduce. The next theorem states some
results concerning the sum, difference, ratio and product of infinite limits — unfortunately
in many cases we cannot make general statements and the results will depend on the
details of the problem at hand.

71
L IMITS 1.5 L IMITS AT INFINITY

Theorem 1.5.9 (Arithmetic of infinite limits).

Let a, c, H P R and let f , g, h be functions defined in an interval around a (but

they need not defined at x = a), so that

lim f ( x ) = +8 lim g( x ) = +8 lim h( x ) = H

xÑa xÑa xÑa

• lim ( f ( x ) + g( x )) = +8
xÑa

• lim ( f ( x ) + h( x )) = +8
xÑa

• lim ( f ( x ) ´ g( x )) undetermined
xÑa

• lim ( f ( x ) ´ h( x )) = +8
xÑa
$
&+8
’ cą0
• lim c f ( x ) = 0 c=0
xÑa ’
că0
%
´8

• lim ( f ( x ) ¨ g( x )) = +8.
xÑa
$
&+8
’ Hą0
• lim f ( x )h( x ) = ´8 Hă0
xÑa ’
undetermined H=0
%

f (x)
• lim undetermined
xÑa g ( x )
$
f (x) &+8
’ Hą0
• lim = ´8 Hă0
xÑa h ( x ) ’
undetermined H=0
%

h( x )
• lim =0
xÑa f (x)

Note that by “undetermined” we mean that the limit may or may not exist, but cannot
be determined from the information given in the theorem. See Example 1.4.6 for an exam-
ple of what we mean by “undetermined”. Additionally consider the following example.

Example 1.5.10
Consider the following 3 functions:

f ( x ) = x´2 g( x ) = 2x´2 h( x ) = x´2 ´ 1.

72
 L IMITS 1.6 C ONTINUITY

Their limits as x Ñ 0 are:

lim f ( x ) = +8 lim g( x ) = +8 lim h( x ) = +8.

xÑ0 xÑ0 xÑ0

Say we want to compute the limit of the difference of two of the above functions as x Ñ 0.
Then the previous theorem cannot help us. This is not because it is too weak, rather it is
because the difference of two infinite limits can be, either plus infinity, minus infinity or
some finite number depending on the details of the problem. For example,

lim ( f ( x ) ´ g( x )) = lim ´x´2 = ´8

xÑ0 xÑ0
lim ( f ( x ) ´ h( x )) = lim 1 = 1
xÑ0 xÑ0
lim ( g( x ) ´ h( x )) = lim x´2 + 1 = +8
xÑ0 xÑ0

Example 1.5.10

1.6 IJ Continuity
We have seen that computing the limits some functions — polynomials and rational func-
tions — is very easy because

lim f ( x ) = f ( a).
xÑa

That is, the the limit as x approaches a is just f ( a). Roughly speaking, the reason we can
compute the limit this way is that these functions do not have any abrupt jumps near a.
Many other functions have this property, sin( x ) for example. A function with this
property is called “continuous” and there is a precise mathematical definition for it. If
you do not recall interval notation, then now is a good time to take a quick look back at
Definition 0.3.5.
Definition 1.6.1.

A function f ( x ) is continuous at a if

lim f ( x ) = f ( a)
xÑa

If a function is not continuous at a then it is said to be discontinuous at a.

When we write that f is continuous without specifying a point, then typically
this means that f is continuous at a for all a P R.
When we write that f ( x ) is continuous on the open interval ( a, b) then the func-
tion is continuous at every point c satisfying a ă c ă b.

So if a function is continuous at x = a we immediately know that

• f ( a) exists

73