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 of the argument , but by definition .
This is an instance of a function which possesses both a value and a limit at the value of the argument, but the value is not equal to the limit. At the end of XI. the function was considered at the value of the argument. Its value at is , i.e. , and it was proved that its limit is also . 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, will serve our purpose. Now in any mathematical book, we might find the equation, , written without hesitation or comment. But there is a difficulty in this; for when is zero, ; and has no defined meaning. Thus the value of the function at has no defined
meaning. But for every other value of , the value of the function is . Thus the limit of at is , and it has no value at . Similarly the limit of at is whatever may be, so that the limit of at is . But the value of at takes the form , which has no defined meaning. Thus the function has a limit but no value at .
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 at any value of its argument. Our answer is that this rate of increase is the limit of the function at the value zero for its argument . (Note that is here a "constant.") Let us see how this answer works
in the light of our definition of a limit. We have
Now in finding the limit of at the value of the argument , the value (if any) of the function at is excluded. But for all values of , except , we can divide through by . Thus the limit of at is the same as that of at . Now, whatever standard of approximation we choose to take, by considering the interval from to we see that, for values of which fall within it, differs from by less than , that is by less than . This is true for any standard . Hence in the neighbourhood of the value for , approximates to within every standard of approximation, and therefore is the limit of at . Hence by what has been said above is the limit of at the value for . It follows, therefore, that is what we have called the rate of increase of at the value of the argument. Thus this method conducts us to the same rate of increase