The Limit Laws


LEMMA


a lemma is an auxiliary theorem, a result that justifies its existence only by virtue of its prominent role in the proof of another theorem.

(1) If

∣x−x0∣<ϵ2and∣y−y0∣<ϵ2|x-x_0| < \frac{\epsilon}{2} \quad and \quad |y-y_0| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}

then

∣(x+y)−(x0+y0)∣<ϵ|(x+y) - (x_0+y_0)| < \epsilon

Proof:

∣(x+y)−(x0+y0)∣=∣(x−x0)+(y−y0)∣≤∣x−x0∣+∣y−y0∣<ϵ2+ϵ2=ϵ\begin{aligned} \\ |(x+y) - (x_0+y_0)| = |(x-x_0)+ (y-y_0)| \\ \leq |x-x_0| + |y-y_0| \\ < \frac{\epsilon}{2} + \frac{\epsilon}{2} \\ = \epsilon \\ \end{aligned}

(2) If

∣x−x0∣<min(1,ϵ2(∣y0∣+1))and∣y−y0∣<ϵ2(∣x0∣+1)|x-x_0| < min(1, \frac{\epsilon}{2(|y_0| + 1)}) \quad and \quad |y-y_0| < \frac{\epsilon}{2(|x_0| + 1)}

then

∣xy−x0y0∣<ϵ|xy-x_0y_0| < \epsilon

Proof:

Since ∣x−x0∣<1|x-x_0| < 1 we have

∣x∣−∣x0∣≤∣x−x0∣<1|x| - |x_0| \leq |x-x_0| < 1

so that

∣x∣<1+∣x0∣|x| < 1 + |x_0|

Thus

∣xy−x0y0∣=∣x(y−y0)+y0(x−x0)∣≤∣x∣⋅∣y−y0∣+∣y0∣⋅∣x−x0∣<(1+∣x0∣)⋅ϵ2(∣x0∣+1)+∣y0∣⋅ϵ2(∣y0∣+1)<ϵ2+ϵ2<ϵ\begin{aligned} |xy-x_0y_0| = |x(y-y_0) + y_0(x-x_0)| \\ \leq |x| \cdot |y-y_0| + |y_0| \cdot |x-x_0| \\ < (1 + |x_0|) \cdot \frac{\epsilon}{2(|x_0| + 1)} + |y_0| \cdot \frac{\epsilon}{2(|y_0| + 1)} \\ < \frac{\epsilon}{2} + \frac{\epsilon}{2} \\ < \epsilon \\ \end{aligned}

(3) If y0≠0y_0 \neq 0 and

∣y−y0∣<min(∣y0∣2,ϵ∣y0∣22)|y-y_0| < min(\frac{|y_0|}{2}, \frac{\epsilon |y_0|^2}{2})

then y≠0y \neq 0 and

∣1y−1y0∣<ϵ|\frac{1}{y} - \frac{1}{y_0}| < \epsilon

Proof:

We have

∣y0∣−∣y∣≤∣y−y0∣<∣y0∣2|y_0| - |y| \leq |y - y_0| < \frac{|y_0|}{2}

so ∣y∣>∣y0∣/2|y| > |y_0|/2. In particular, y≠0y \neq 0, and

1∣y∣<2∣y0∣\frac{1}{|y|} < \frac{2}{|y_0|}

Thus

∣1y−1y0∣=∣y0−y∣∣y∣⋅∣y0∣<2∣y0⋅1∣y0∣⋅ϵ∣y0∣22<ϵ|\frac{1}{y} - \frac{1}{y_0}| = \frac{|y_0 - y|}{|y| \cdot |y_0|} < \frac{2}{|y_0} \cdot \frac{1}{|y_0|} \cdot \frac{\epsilon |y_0|^2}{2} < \epsilon

Theorem


If

lim⁡x→af(x)=landlim⁡x→ag(x)=m\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = l \quad and \quad \lim_{x \to a} g(x) = m

then

(1)lim⁡x→a(f+g)(x)=l+m(2)lim⁡x→a(f⋅g)(x)=l⋅m(3)lim⁡x→a(1g)(x)=1mifm≠0\begin{aligned} & (1) \lim_{x \to a} (f+g)(x) = l + m \\ & (2) \lim_{x \to a} (f \cdot g)(x) = l \cdot m \\ & (3) \lim_{x \to a} (\frac{1}{g})(x) = \frac{1}{m} \quad if \quad m \neq 0 \\ \end{aligned}

Proof


The hypothesis means that for every ϵ>0\epsilon > 0 there are δ1,δ2>0\delta_1, \delta_2 > 0 such that, for all xx

if0<∣x−a∣<δ1,then∣f(x)−l∣<ϵ,if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta_1, \quad then \quad |f(x) - l| < \epsilon, andif0<∣x−a∣<δ2,then∣g(x)−m∣<ϵ,and \quad if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta_2, \quad then \quad |g(x) - m| < \epsilon,

This means (since, after all, ϵ/2\epsilon/2 is also a positive number) that there are δ1,δ2>0\delta_1, \delta_2 > 0 such that, for all xx

if0<∣x−a∣<δ1,then∣f(x)−l∣<ϵ2,if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta_1, \quad then \quad |f(x) - l| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}, andif0<∣x−a∣<δ2,then∣g(x)−m∣<ϵ2,and \quad if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta_2, \quad then \quad |g(x) - m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2},

Now let δ=min(δ1,δ2)\delta = min(\delta_1, \delta_2). if 0<∣x−a∣<δ0 < |x-a| < \delta, then 0<∣x−a∣<δ10 < |x-a| < \delta_1 and 0<∣x−a∣<δ20 < |x-a| < \delta_2 are both true, so both

∣f(x)−l∣<ϵ2and∣g(x)−m∣<ϵ2|f(x) - l| < \frac{\epsilon}{2} \quad and \quad |g(x) - m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2}

are true. But by part (1) of the lemma this implies that

∣(f+g)(x)−(l+m)∣<ϵ|(f+g)(x) - (l+m)| < \epsilon

This proves (1).

To prove (2) we proceed similarly, after consulting part (2) of the lemma. If ϵ>0\epsilon > 0 there are δ1\delta_1, δ2>0 \delta_2> 0 such that, for all xx,

if0<∣x−a∣<δ1,and∣f(x)−l∣<min(1,ϵ2(∣m∣+1))if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta_1, \quad and \quad |f(x) - l| < min(1, \frac{\epsilon}{2(|m| + 1)}) andif0<∣x−a∣<δ2,and∣g(x)−m∣<ϵ2(∣l∣+1)and \quad if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta_2, \quad and \quad |g(x) - m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2(|l| + 1)}

Again let δ=min(δ1,δ2)\delta = min(\delta_1, \delta_2), if 0<∣x−a∣<δ0 < |x-a| < \delta, then

∣f(x)−l∣<min(1,ϵ2(∣m∣+1))|f(x) - l| < min(1, \frac{\epsilon}{2(|m| + 1)}) ∣g(x)−m∣<ϵ2(∣l∣+1)|g(x) - m| < \frac{\epsilon}{2(|l| + 1)}

So, by the lemma, ∣(f⋅g)(x)−l⋅m∣<ϵ|(f \cdot g)(x) - l \cdot m| < \epsilon, and this proves (2)

Finally, if ϵ>0\epsilon > 0 there is a δ>0\delta > 0 such that, for all xx,

if0<∣x−a∣<δ,then∣g(x)−m∣<min(∣m∣2,ϵ∣m∣22)if \quad 0 < |x-a| < \delta, \quad then \quad |g(x) - m| < min(\frac{|m|}{2}, \frac{\epsilon |m|^2}{2})

But according to part (3) of the lemma this means, first, that g(x)≠0g(x) \neq 0, so (1/g)(x)(1/g)(x) makes sense, and second that

∣(1g)(x)−1m∣<ϵ|(\frac{1}{g})(x) - \frac{1}{m}| < \epsilon

This proves (3).


Reference: Calculus Micheal Spivak. 5. Limits

分类

Published at:
October 8, 2026
Keywords:
Math
Calculus
Limits