CodalSearch this book — or all of Codal…⌘K
nydus/An Introduction to MathematicsPublic
Page 91 of 120
Table of Contents

XV

of the argument except the integers 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , etc., and for these integral values it has the value 0 . Now let us think of its limit when x = 3 . We notice that in the definition of the limit the value of the function at a (in this case, a = 3 ) is excluded. But, excluding f ( 3 ) , the values of f ( x ) , when x lies within any interval which (i) contains 3 not as an end-point, and (ii) does not extend so far as 2 and 4 , are all equal to 1 ; and hence these values approximate to 1 within every standard of approximation. Hence 1 is the limit of f ( x ) at the

value 3 of the argument x, but by definition f(3)=0.

This is an instance of a function which possesses both a value and a limit at the value 3 of the argument, but the value is not equal to the limit. At the end of XI. the function x2 was considered at the value 2 of the argument. Its value at 2 is 22, i.e. 4, and it was proved that its limit is also 4. Thus here we have a function with a value and a limit which are equal.

Finally we come to the case which is essentially important for our purposes, namely, to a function which possesses a limit, but no defined value at a certain value of its argument. We need not go far to look for such a function, 2xx will serve our purpose. Now in any mathematical book, we might find the equation, 2xx=2, written without hesitation or comment. But there is a difficulty in this; for when x is zero, 2xx=00; and 00 has no defined meaning. Thus the value of the function 2xx at x=0 has no defined

meaning. But for every other value of x, the value of the function 2xx is 2. Thus the limit of 2xx at x=0 is 2, and it has no value at x=0. Similarly the limit of x2x at x=a is a whatever a may be, so that the limit of x2x at x=0 is 0. But the value of x2x at x=0 takes the form 00, which has no defined meaning. Thus the function x2x has a limit but no value at 0.

We now come back to the problem from which we started this discussion on the nature of a limit. How are we going to define the rate of increase of the function x2 at any value x of its argument. Our answer is that this rate of increase is the limit of the function (x+h)2x2h at the value zero for its argument h. (Note that x is here a "constant.") Let us see how this answer works

in the light of our definition of a limit. We have (x+h)2x2h=2hx+h2h=h(2x+h)h.

Now in finding the limit of h(2x+h)h at the value 0 of the argument h, the value (if any) of the function at h=0 is excluded. But for all values of h, except h=0, we can divide through by h. Thus the limit of h(2x+h)h at h=0 is the same as that of 2x+h at h=0. Now, whatever standard of approximation k we choose to take, by considering the interval from 12k to +12k we see that, for values of h which fall within it, 2x+h differs from 2x by less than 12k, that is by less than k. This is true for any standard k. Hence in the neighbourhood of the value 0 for h, 2x+h approximates to 2x within every standard of approximation, and therefore 2x is the limit of 2x+h at h=0. Hence by what has been said above 2x is the limit of (x+h)2x2h at the value 0 for h. It follows, therefore, that 2x is what we have called the rate of increase of x2 at the value x of the argument. Thus this method conducts us to the same rate of increase

91