When Delta Met Epsilon – The Formal Definition of the

Limit

Richard Dlin

March 29, 2012

Abstract

This capstone project was prepared as part of the requirements for completion of the Uni-
versity of Waterloo Masters of Mathematics for Teachers program. It is designed for Ontario
Grade 12 students who are taking or have taken Calculus and Vectors, and who are capable of
working at the enriched level. The goal of this document is to help students gain an historical
appreciation for the formal definition of the limit, as well as a mathematical understanding of
how it is applied. This document is an excellent aid to prepare students who intend to study
math at the post-secondary level. It is intended for use as a combination of independent study
and in-class lessons, where students read each unit independently and examples and discussion
are taken up in class. When discussed in class, it is highly recommended that the instructor
use graphing software as an aid for illustrating some of the more subtle concepts involving
limits.

1
Contents

1 The Trouble With Zeno 4

1.1 Achilles and the Tortoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 A Modern Example: Usain Bolt v. Teddy the Tortoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.1 Part One Of the Paradox: Why Usain Must Win . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2.2 Part Two Of the Paradox: Why Usain Can’t Win . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Back to Achilles and the Tortoise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.4 Resolving the Paradox: In Your Face Zeno! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 No Limit To Intuition 11

2.1 Ancient Babylon and Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1.1 The Babylonian Square Root Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1.2 The Ancient Greeks Wrestle With Square Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2 From Zeno ... er ... ZERO to Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.3 Newton and Leibniz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.3.1 Leibniz Considers Infinite Sums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.2 Newton Considers Instantaneous Rates Of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.4 Bolzano and Weierstrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4.1 Bolzano on Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4.2 Weierstrass on Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3 Epsilon Meets Delta – Formally 26

3.1 The Tale of Eldridge and Rachel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 (, δ) Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.1 Linear Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.2 Rational Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.3 Getting Radical: Finding δ For a Given  in a Function With Radicals . . . 30

2
 3.3 Limits Involving Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.4 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4 Solutions to Exercises 36

4.1 Solutions For Section 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.2 Solutions For Section 2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.3 Solutions For Section 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A Mathematical Induction 51

B Triangular Numbers 53

C Binomial Theorem 54

D The Difference Between “Undefined” and “Indeterminate” 55

E Logical “If...Then” Statements 56

3
1 The Trouble With Zeno

1.1 Achilles and the Tortoise

There is a well-known and oft-retold paradox, credited to Zeno of Elea, an ancient Greek philosopher
who lived in the 4th century BC [3]. It is known as Achilles and the Tortoise, and it goes something
like this:

Suppose that Achilles is set to participate in a footrace with a tortoise. Since Achilles is clearly
a faster runner than the tortoise, he offers the tortoise a headstart. The race begins, and both
runners start running simultaneously, and continuously. Suppose that the race is sufficiently long
that Achilles can overcome the headstart and win. The question Zeno asks is “How can that
happen?” He argues that for Achilles to win he must first catch up to the tortoise. Now since the
tortoise has a headstart, Achilles must run for some time before he reaches the point where the
tortoise began the race. However since time must elapse for that to happen, and since the tortoise
is also moving forward, the tortoise will no longer be there. At this instant in time we see that
the tortoise is some way down the racetrack, and Achilles is behind him, and so essentially the
race can be thought to begin again at that moment, once more with the tortoise ahead. How then
can Achilles ever catch up? For every time Achilles reaches the point where the tortoise was, the
tortoise, who is constantly moving forward, will no longer be there. The paradox of course, is that
we know that Achilles will catch up and win, in fairly short order.

1.2 A Modern Example: Usain Bolt v. Teddy the Tortoise

In order to demonstrate both sides of the paradox, let’s have a look at a

specific example.

On August 16, 2009, Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt set a world record by
running the 100 m dash in 9.58 seconds[4], which is equivalent to an average
speed of approximately 10.4 m/s. Let’s assume for convenience that this
means that Usain can run at an average speed of 10 m/s.

Usain Bolt at Berlin World

Championships in 2009

Meanwhile, the giant tortoise moves on dry land at the slightly more
leisurely pace of 0.27 km/h[8], which converts to 0.075 m/s.

So let’s suppose that Usain has been challenged to a 100 m sprint by

Teddy the Tortoise. Usain accepts the challenge, but because he knows
that Teddy has some issues with speed, he offers to give Teddy a 25 m
headstart, which Teddy decides to use. What will happen? Teddy the Tortoise

4
1.2.1 Part One Of the Paradox: Why Usain Must Win

We already know that at a speed of 10 m/s, Usain can finish the race in 10 seconds. What about
Teddy?

Let’s perform some calculations based on the speeds given, and using the simple formula d = st,
where d represents distance (in meters), s represents speed (in m/s), and t represents time (in
seconds).
100
First, the time it takes Teddy to finish is ≈ 1333.33 seconds.
0.075
This is somewhat longer in duration than Usain’s 10 seconds, so clearly Usain will win.

But if that is the case then Usain must overtake Teddy at some point. When will that happen?
For that, let’s define some variables:

Let d1 represent the distance, in meters, traveled by Usain t seconds after the race begins, and let
d2 represent the distance traveled by Teddy in the same time.

Since Teddy has a 25 m headstart, the runners will be at the exact same spot when d2 + 25 = d1 .
We can solve for t as follows:

d2 + 25 = d1
0.075t + 25 = 10t
9.925t = 25
t ≈ 2.52

So we know that after approximately 2.52 seconds Usain and Teddy will be at the same position
on the track, and since Usain is the faster runner, from that point in time on Usain will be ahead
and thus win.

1.2.2 Part Two Of the Paradox: Why Usain Can’t Win

In order to overtake Teddy, Usain must first cover the distance between them owing to the headstart,
and once he has done that he is again faced with overtaking a moving opponent with a headstart.
It would seem that this process can be taken indefinitely and there will always be some distance
separating Usain and Teddy, with Teddy still in front.

Mathematically, we can analyze this by breaking the race into stages, where each stage represents
the portion of the race where Usain must catch up to Teddy’s position at the start of the stage.
For any stage we can calculate the distance Usain must cover, which we can think of as the gap
between Usain and Teddy. Here are the first few stages:

Stage 0:
Usain must cover 25 m. Therefore the gap for Stage 0 is 25 m.

5
Stage 1:
Usain must cover the distance Teddy was able to travel during Stage 0. This may be calcu-
lated as follows:

25
Time for Usain to complete Stage 0 =
10.4
25
Distance Teddy traveled in Stage 0 = × 0.075
10.4
 
0.075
= 25
10.4
≈ 0.18

So the gap for Stage 1 is approximately 0.18 m.

Stage 2:
Usain must cover the distance Teddy was able to travel during Stage 1. This may be calcu-
lated as follows:

 
0.075
Time for Usain to complete Stage 1 = 25 ÷ 10.4
10.4
 
0.075
= 25
10.42
 
0.075
Distance Teddy traveled in Stage 1 = 25 × 0.075
10.42
 2
0.075
= 25
10.4
≈ 0.0013

So the gap for Stage 2 is approximately 0.0013 m.

Stage n:
In general if we continue this process, we see that the gap for the nth stage can be modeled
by the function
 n
0.075
g(n) = 25 , for n ∈ W.
10.4
(proof of this is left as an exercise)

So what does this tell us? Well, let’s look at g(n) more closely, because it has a very interesting
feature!

In order for Usain to win he must catch up, which means he must close the gap to zero. Thus we
need to solve the following equation:

g(n) = 0
 n
0.075
25 = 0
10.4
 n
0.075
= 0
10.4

6
 0.075
But since 6= 0, this equation has no solution.
10.4
So it would seem that we have shown that Usain can never close the gap and thus never win. Clearly
a paradox.

1.3 Back to Achilles and the Tortoise

We now return to Achilles and the Tortoise, and generalize our result even further to apply it to
Zeno’s Paradox. If we let Achilles’ footspeed be represented by s1 , and the speed of the tortoise be
represented by s2 , then if the headstart given to the tortoise is represented by h we have that the
gap between Achilles and the tortoise at Stage n can be modeled by the function
 n
s2
g(n) = h × , for n ∈ W.
s1
Further, since s2 < s1 , this function can also be expressed as

g(n) = hrn
s2
where 0 < r = < 1.
s1
As in the example with Usain and Teddy, it is not possible to solve the equation g(n) = 0, and this
is the core of Zeno’s argument. Using our formulae, the paradox can be expressed algebraically as
follows:

The time when Achilles catches up to the tortoise can be determined simply by solving the equation

s2 t + h = s1 t

which delivers
h
t= ,
s1 − s2
which is well-defined since s1 6= s2 .

However the equation g(n) = 0 cannot be solved, for no matter how large a value for n we choose,
h
g(n) > 0. Yet g(n) = 0 is exactly the condition that exists when t = .
s1 − s2
Both methods are mathematically sound ways to model the race, yet they contradict each other.
Therefore we have a paradox. But hope is not lost!

1.4 Resolving the Paradox: In Your Face Zeno!

In fact the resolution to Zeno’s paradox is contained within the paradox itself. That is to say, since
we know that Achilles will catch up, the problem is not that the two ways of looking at the race
are contradictory but rather that one of the models is not accurate. In other words, the paradox is
actually just a mathematical sleight of hand.

The flaw occurs in the model where we attempt to break the race into discrete stages, while at the
same time assuming that the motion is continuous. Further, there is this ambiguous notion of an

7
infinite number of stages being “compressed” into a finite amount of time. Time is continuous, and
the stages are discrete.

Let’s have a look at that model again:

g(n) = hrn , where 0 < r < 1, and n ∈ W

Here we have a nice, well ordered set like the whole numbers (i.e., {0, 1, 2, ...}) being used to model
the continuous motion of the two runners. But how can we really do that? There is no stop-motion
photography governing movement in the real world. When we break the race into stages, we are
essentially applying cartoon animation techniques to a real-life situation. It doesn’t work that way.
Consider the simple animation sequence in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Three-frame stick figure animation sequence

The animation takes the stick figure’s arms from the high position to the low position, and if it were
played quickly enough, we would “see” motion. However no motion occurs. Rather, the stages of
motion are simulated. This is the principal on which all cartoon animation is based, and in fact how
film works as well. A sequence of photos are taken of an object in motion, and when the photos are
subsequently shown in sequence at an appropriate speed, it simulates the photographed motion.

But this does not reflect reality. In the real world motion is not simulated – it really occurs. And
if the stick figure shown above were real, the arms would have to move through every position that
exists between the first frame and the last. And the confusing part is that this represents an infinite
amount of positions. Infinite. Consider that if we tried to use cartoon animation techniques to
model that, the film strip would be infinitely long, and that wouldn’t even be sufficient to model
the slightest twitch.

So the flaw in using the function g(n) to model the gap between Achilles and the tortoise is that it
assumes cartoon-type animation as opposed to real-world motion. This is not a bad thing, because
it does allow us to calculate the gap at any instant in time. However there is no pause button
for the real world, and instants in time have no duration. So how to reconcile the function with
reality? Clearly another layer of abstraction needs to be laid on top in order to correct for the
discrete nature of the function being used to model a continuous scenario.

This layer is known formally as the limit. It is actually fairly easy to consider in a heuristic sense.
We consider what happens to the function g(n) as larger and larger values for n are used. In other
words, what happens to g(n) as n approaches infinity. The notation we use for this is:

lim g(n)
n→∞

and we say “The limit, as n approaches infinity, of g(n)”.

8
Now let’s once again have a look at the formula we’re using to model the gap:

g(n) = hrn

Since 0 < r < 1 and h 6= 0, as the values for n get larger and larger, g(n) actually gets closer and
closer to zero. In fact there is no value  > 0 that we could choose for the gap between Achilles
and the tortoise that g(n) could not “beat”. That is to say, for any  > 0 there exists some N ∈ W
such that 0 < g(N ) < .

Because this is true – because we can get g(n) to be as close to zero as we want simply by selecting
an appropriate value for n – we say that the limit is zero. We write

lim hrn = 0
n→∞

This is the resolution to the paradox. We have taken the discrete model and applied the limit to
show that in fact Achilles will overtake the tortoise.

This is great news for Usain Bolt! Not so much for Teddy.

1.5 Exercises

1. Sam and Catherine are going to have a race. Sam can run at a speed of 6.1 m/s, while
Catherine can run at a speed of 4.8 m/s. The race will be 200 m long. Catherine will have a
15 m headstart.

(a) How long will it take Sam to finish the race?

(b) How long will it take Catherine to finish the race?
(c) Determine a function g(n) that we could use to model the gap between Sam and Cather-
ine, where n represents the stage of the race where Sam has to catch up to the position
where Catherine was at the start of the stage. Note that g(0) = 15.
(d) Use your function to determine the gap between Sam and Catherine after 5.2 seconds,
correct to the nearest hundredth of a meter.
(e) How long will it take before Sam catches up to Catherine? Give your answer to the
nearest hundredth of a second.
(f) What distance could we shorten the race to if we wanted the runners to tie?

2. Evaluate the following limits, if possible.

 n
1
(a) lim
n→∞ 2
(b) lim 2n
n→−∞
1
(c) lim
n→∞n
1
(d) lim
n→0 n

9
3. Refer to appendix A for an explanation of mathematical induction, and then use induction to
prove that the gap formula for Stage n of the Usain vs. Teddy example is correct. Recall the
claim is that the gap can be modeled by the function
 n
0.075
g(n) = 25 , for n ∈ W.
10.4

4. Zeno offered another paradox, known as The Arrow Paradox, and once again it involves
motion. For motion to occur, an object must change position. However Zeno argues that if
we consider an instant in time during the flight of an arrow, then the arrow is not moving to
where it is (since it is already there), and it cannot move to where it is not, since no time
elapses in an instant. Therefore in any instant the arrow is motionless, and since time is made
up of instants, an arrow in flight should not be able to move at all [9].

(a) How is The Arrow Paradox different from Achilles and the Tortoise?
(b) What is the flaw in The Arrow Paradox?
(Note: The answer to this question is very much an ongoing debate!)

Artist: Rachel Zatzman

10
2 No Limit To Intuition

Intuitively, the mathematical notion of a limit is fairly easy to grasp. So easy, in fact, that students
often miss the main idea, and chalk the concept up to “those silly mathematicians making a big
deal out of nothing again” (and for more information on making a big deal out of nothing, check
out the history of the number zero!)

As an example, let’s consider a very simple function, f (x) = x + 4, which has the following very
straightforward graph (note that the stick figure is not actually part of the graph):

Figure 2: Larry walks a simple function

Further, let’s consider the neighbourhood surrounding the point A(2, 6). If we imagine someone
walking on the line this function represents, and what happens as they approach the point A, it’s
very easy to see that they would consistently be getting closer and closer to the same vertical
position as A. We’ll name this function-walker “Larry the Limit Guy”, and think for a while about
his fate.

As Larry walks along the line, the closer his x-value gets to 2, the closer his y-value gets to 6. In
fact, the closer we would like to position Larry vertically to A, the closer his x-value has to be to
2. Note that this would be true regardless of whether he approaches from the left or from the right
side of A. Using limit notation, we say

lim (x + 4) = 6
x→2

To many students, this is a trivial result. However it is not trivial at all. Not when we consider
what we are saying. We are saying that we can get Larry’s y-value as close to 6 as we want to by
setting his x-value as close to 2 as we need to. We can actually set up a scenario where he continues
walking in the direction of A for eternity, and yet never rises above (or drops below, depending on
direction) a vertical position of 6. To see this, consider this example:

Let’s set Larry’s x-coordinate at 1 to begin. Now let’s animate him by incrementing his x-value

11
each second using the following formula:
xi−1 + 2
x0 = 1, xi =
2
where xi represents his new x-coordinate and xi−1 is his previous x-coordinate. Note that this is
simply setting each new x-value to the arithmetic mean of the previous x-value and 2, which has
the effect at each stage of advancing him horizontally halfway to x = 2.

Since we are initializing x0 at 1, which is less than 2, and repeatedly taking the mean of Larry’s
x-coordinate and 2, we will continue to get results that are less than 2. This guarantees that
xi−1 < xi < 2 for all natural numbers i (this fact could be proven by mathematical induction, which
is covered in appendix A).

What we have effectively done is guarantee that Larry’s vertical position is always increasing – since
he is walking right on a line with positive slope – and yet always less than 6, since his x-coordinate
(defined by the sequence of xi ’s we generate above) is guaranteed to always be less than 2.

This result is significant and bears thought. His vertical position increases indefinitely, and yet he
will never reach the vertical position of 6. That is to say, starting from a position lower than 6,
he can walk upwards forever and never reach 6. This is fundamentally the same troubling concept
that Zeno highlights in his Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox. In the paradox, Achilles appears to
be able to run faster than the tortoise forever, and yet never catch up.

This flies in the face of intuition. In fact, it is intuition that is at once the limit’s best friend, and
also its worst enemy. Let’s investigate some of the problems faced historically before limits came
along. Many of them result from a blurring between discrete and continuous concepts.

2.1 Ancient Babylon and Greece

Throughout history there have been many civilizations that contributed to the body of modern
mathematics, some very profoundly. Very few mathematicians would hesitate to refer to the an-
cient Greeks as perhaps the first authorities on the treatment of mathematics as an intellectual
and philosophical pursuit, rather than one of pure utility. But they had to get their ideas from
somewhere, and one such place was the Babylonians[2]. In this section we’ll have a look at just
a few examples of how these ancient mathematicians flirted with the concept of infinity, and how
they were at times frustrated by the difficulty of applying discrete models to continuous scenarios.

Let’s start by looking at a clever algorithm developed by the Babylonians for estimating the square
root of integers that are not perfect squares.

2.1.1 The Babylonian Square Root Algorithm

The Babylonians did have cause to consider how to determine the square root of integers that are
not perfect squares. Having knowledge of what came to be known as the Pythagorean Theorem,
they would often encounter situations where such a calculation would be required. They used the
algorithm shown in figure 3.

12
 √
• Let x = a, and suppose a1 is a first approximation for x.
a
• Let b1 = .
a1
√ a
• If a1 = a, then = a1 , and there would be cause for great celebration,
a1
since we would have an exact answer: x = a1 . However this won’t
happen for integers that are not perfect squares, as we now know. So
either b1 < a1 , or b1 > a1 .

• If b1 > a1 then a1 < x, else a1 > x. In any case x will be somewhere

1
between a1 and b1 , so we’ll carry on, and set a2 = (a1 + b1 ).
2
• Repeat the process until the desired precision is reached.

Figure 3: The Babylonian Square Root Algorithm[2]

In his book A History of Mathematics, Carl Boyer makes the following observation[2].

In the Babylonian square-root algorithm one finds an iterative procedure that could have
put the mathematicians of the time in touch with infinite processes, but scholars of the
time did not pursue the implications of such problems.

Boyer’s observation merits thought. The Babylonians were only concerned with approximating the
answer to some desired precision. However the algorithm, if continued indefinitely, would actually
produce the correct answer! Naturally the effort it would take to repeat the process indefinitely is
a tad daunting, and in any case it would produce a result that is essentially irrelevant if the goal is
to apply it to some physical measurement.

Let’s look at an example of√how the Babylonian algorithm works. Suppose we wish to calculate the
square root of 2. Let x = 2, and let’s use an initial estimate of 2, which is actually quite silly –
and yet even still we shall see how quickly the algorithm produces results.

For comparison purposes we’ll do something the Babylonians could not, which is√to compare the
results to what we know to be the actual answer, rounded to six decimal places: 2 ≈ 1.414214.

13
 Iteration (i) Estimate (ai ) |1.414214 − ai | bi

1 2 0.585786 2÷2=1

1 3 3 4
2 (2 + 1) = 0.085786 2÷ =
2 2 2 3

 
1 3 4 17 17 24
3 + = 0.002453 2÷ =
2 2 3 12 12 17

 
1 17 24 577
4 + = 0.000002 NA
2 12 17 408

We’ll stop here and admire what we have achieved. That is, we have come within 2 millionths of
the correct answer, after only 4 iterations, and having started with a silly estimate!

The example demonstrates two important things about the Babylonian algorithm. First, that it does
a very quick job of getting very close to the answer we seek√ and second, that it could theoretically
be repeated indefinitely to produce the “exact” value of 2. Of course, since repeating a process
indefinitely is hardly reasonable, it didn’t occur to the Babylonians
√ to try. Today, we can use limits
to extend the Babylonian algorithm indefinitely, and calculate 2.

First, define a sequence of estimates {an }, according to the rule

 
1 2
a0 = 2, an = an−1 + , for all n ∈ N.
2 an−1

√
Since it is the nature of the algorithm for each estimate to be closer to 2 than its predecessor1 ,
we say √
2 = lim an
n→∞

If the Babylonians had wanted to take the time to pursue indefinite processes, perhaps calculus
would have been discovered two thousand years before it was!

1
We actually can’t really say this without proving it, but for now we’ll rely on our intuition, which fortunately
happens to be correct in this case.

14
2.1.2 The Ancient Greeks Wrestle With Square Root

One big issue in the discrete vs. continuous arena is

the apparent inability to reconcile the use of numbers to
represent magnitude while also using them for counting.

The ancient Greeks faced this issue in their study of

geometry. To understand, let’s first have a look at how the
Greeks related numbers and geometry.

Figure 4: Two line segments with com-

mensurable magnitude

Consider the two line segments shown in Figure 4. Although the diagram indicates magnitudes
for each segment, this is done only for the purposes of our discussion – the Greeks would not have
applied a numeric representation of magnitude to each of the segments. Instead, they would have
used numbers to show that the segments are commensurable[1].

This means that it is possible to scale each line, using natural numbers, to a common magnitude.
Another way of looking at it is to say that the ratio of the magnitudes is rational – in this case the
ratio is AB : CD = 5 : 2, and because of this rational ratio, if we scaled AB by 2 and CD by 5,
the result would be two line segments of equal magnitude. Specifically 2AB = 5CD.

So the Greeks readily used numbers to count how may of each line segment would be required to
commensurate the magnitudes, without having to use numbers to represent the actual magnitudes.
These days, we know that the only reason they were able to do this is because the magnitudes
are rational 2 . We can use algebra to show that, given rational magnitudes, commensurability will
always be ensured, as follows.
m p
Suppose we have two line segments AB and CD with rational magnitudes and , respectively.
n q
Note that because we are discussing magnitudes, we can safely assume that m, n, p and q are all
positive. So the ratio of the magnitudes is
m p
AB : CD = :
n q
AB : CD = mq : np
⇒ np(AB) = mq(CD)

and since m, n, p and q are all positive integers, this is merely a question of counting out the correct
number of segments for AB and CD to show commensurability. So we see that commensurability
depends entirely on the rational magnitudes.

Then the Greeks ran into a problem: the side of a square and the diagonal of the same square are
not commensurable! Consider the square shown in Figure 5.

2 a
Recall that a rational number is one that can be written in the form b, where a and b are integers, and b 6= 0.

15
 Figure 5: Square showing non-commensurable magnitudes

First, note that regardless of the way we apply units of measure today, any square can be considered
to have a side length of 1, simply by defining an appropriate unit of measure to match the side
length of the given square. So that the problem of the Greeks really boils down to what happens
in a unit square.

Using Pythagorean
√ Theorem we can easily determine that the magnitude
√ of the diagonal of a unit
square is 2 units. And in modern mathematics, we know that 2 is an irrational number3 . But
what did this mean to the Greeks?

It meant that they had two line segments that were incommensurable, which is to say, it is not
possible to scale the segment representing the side of the square and the segment representing the
diagonal using counting numbers and ever arrive at line segments of equal length. What this meant
to them was that numbers and magnitudes would have to be two separate concepts.

Nowadays, we look at the number line as a continuum, and so we do not see any difficulty in using
the natural numbers for counting, the√rational numbers for ratios, and the irrational numbers to
commensurate magnitudes like 1 and 2. And it is this very notion of continuum that the limit
relies on (or perhaps the continuum relies on the limit?)

It is interesting to note that if the Babylonians had pursued their algorithm for square root to explore
indefinite processes, the Greeks may not have considered the two line segments as incommensurable.
√
For indeed, using the Babylonian technique and starting with an initial estimate of√ 2 ≈ 1, the
repeated Babylonian algorithm would in fact commensurate the magnitudes 1 and 2, so long as
the process were allowed to continue indefinitely4 . The process requires only addition and division,
both of which were operations the ancient Greeks were completely comfortable with as they apply to
magnitudes of line segments. Unfortunately, the ancient Greeks were not comfortable with processes
that take forever to complete. And who could blame them? Forever is a long time.

Both the Babylonians and the Greeks flirted with the concept of infinite processes, but neither
civilization was able to reconcile packing an “infinite” amount of work into a finite amount of time
or space. And so Zeno’s paradoxes went unanswered.

3
Recall that an irrational number is a real number that can not be written as a fraction of integers.
4
This is actually a rather glib statement, since continuing a process indefinitely is physically impossible. However
√
in just the same way as Achilles catches the tortoise by closing an infinite number of gaps, we know that 2 is a
discrete value which we can think about in terms of an infinite process.

16
2.2 From Zeno ... er ... ZERO to Infinity

For literally millennia, mathematicians struggled with the

concept of the infinitesimal. Informally, one might think
Let x = y = 1. Then:
of an infinitesimal as a quantity which taken singularly
lacks magnitude, yet when multiplied infinitely, magnitude x = y (1)
results. We implicitly invoke this concept when we use 2
xy = y (2)
words like instant, point, and to some extent, even zero.
Consider the “proof” shown in Figure 6. xy − x2 = 2
y −x 2
(3)
x(y − x) = (y + x)(y − x) (4)
Note that line (8) follows from line (7) by subtracting x = y+x (5)
1 from both sides, and line (5) follows from line (4) by 1 = 1+1 (6)
dividing both sides by (y − x).
1 = 2 (7)
The proof is troubling. However thankfully it is flawed. 0 = 1 (8)
Specifically, when we proceed from line (4) to line (5) we
are dividing by zero, which is an undefined and thus illegal
operation. But consider for a moment what it would mean Figure 6: “Proof” that 1 = 0
if it were defined!
First, think about line (4), which, when you make the substitutions for the variables, really says
1 × 0 = 2 × 0. This is true of course, and well-defined. However how many numbers besides zero can
be scaled by two different natural numbers for the same result? None! This line is saying that one
zero is the same as two zeros. And of course we can extend this for any finite amount of zeros, since
the sum of a series of zeros will always be zero. But look what happens next. When we “divide”
by zero, we end up with 1 = 2, a clearly false result, and an excellent justification for disallowing
division by zero.

But suppose for a moment that division by zero were defined. Specifically, suppose there were some
number, say λ, so that 1 ÷ 0 = λ. Since multiplication and division are inverse operations, this
would mean that
λ × 0 = 1.
That is to say, that a sum of λ zeros would result in a 1. This would clearly require a lot of zeros!
A lot more than 2 of them (2 zeros is still just zero). So if we multiply on the right by 2 we get
λ×0×2 = 1×2
λ×0 = 2
which is to say that this strange “number” λ would be enough to sum a series of zeros simultaneously
to 1, and also to 2. We seem to be saying that if you have enough zeros, they would add up to
anything we wanted them to.

This whole argument seems ridiculous at first glance, and for the most part it is. First of all, if we
were to somehow intuit a value for this weird number λ, it would have to be some form of infinity,
and infinity is a concept, not a number5 . However it does illustrate an important concept, with a
geometric interpretation that bears thought.

Consider that a line segment possessing magnitude is understood to be made up of points possessing
none. For example, everyone generally agrees that a line segment drawn from the point A(0, 0) to
the point B(1, 0) would have a magnitude of 1, and it clearly contains the point B(1, 0).
5
see appendix D for a discussion about division by zero

17
The question is, what happens if we remove point B? Is it still a line segment? On one hand it
must be, since we have only removed an endpoint. On the other hand, what is the new right-hand
endpoint? Can we think about a line segment with no definable endpoint? It’s a tough question
to think about, but we want to say yes. So although it’s a bit complicated, let’s assume for the
moment that we are still dealing with a line segment.

Since points have no magnitude, this new line segment still has a magnitude of 1. And yet it
contains “fewer” points than it did before. So somehow there is a set of points, each with zero
magnitude, that can sum to a line segment of magnitude 1, even when one (or more!) of the points
is removed. So we have a bunch of zeros (the points) that somehow add up to 1, and when we
remove one of the zeros (point B), they still add up to 1. This is difficult to grasp. And yet we
take it for granted.

We do the same thing with time. We freely discuss things like an “instant in time”, or a “moment”,
yet when pressed we would say that these time intervals have no duration. How is it then that time,
which clearly has duration, can be made up of instants, which do not? Once again we find ourselves
bumping into Achilles and the Tortoise, where Zeno freezes the race at successive instants, and uses
these instants to justify the paradox.

These are concepts as difficult to grasp as is the one that results if we allow division by zero.
Concepts that have us wrestling with issues like “zero” and “infinity” and what it means when they
are combined. It’s a thought that troubled mathematicians for a very long time.

Then along came Newton and Leibniz.

2.3 Newton and Leibniz

In the mid 17th century, the stage had been set for a great mathematical leap – the leap to infinity.
Fortunately there were at the time two great minds focused on the problem as well. Gottfried
Leibniz, of The Holy Roman Empire (roughly what we call Germany now) and Sir Isaac Newton,
of England. Working independently – though not in isolation of each other’s ideas – these two men
would discover The Calculus, the foundation of which is the limit. It is impossible to downplay
the importance of the work done by these two intellectual giants. By the same token, it would be
impossible to properly discuss the volumes of work done by each here. Instead, we will show just a
few examples of places where each was employing the concept of the limit, but in a more heuristic
way than we will ultimately come to understand it.

18
2.3.1 Leibniz Considers Infinite Sums

One of Leibniz’s earliest known considerations of infinite pro-

cesses is the way he was able to determine the sum an infinite
series of numbers. Specifically, he used limits to show that the
sum of the reciprocals of the triangular numbers6 would be 2.
Let’s have a look at that.

What Leibniz did was to have a look at the infinite sum

1 1 1
+ + + ··· ,
a1 a2 a3

(where an is the nth triangular number) which he analyzed as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
follows[2]: (1646 – 1716)
1
First Leibniz noted that the formula for can be re-expressed as a difference of two fractions7
an
2 2 2
= −
n(n + 1) n n+1
Then he defined the partial sum as follows:
1 1 1 1
Let Sn = + + + ··· +
a a2 a3 a
1    n   
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
= − + − + − + ··· + −
1 2 2 3 3 4 n n+1
       
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
= + − + + − + + − + + ··· + − + −
1 2 2 3 3 4 4 n n n+1
2
= 2−
n+1
Now in order to sum an infinite number of terms, we need only consider what happens to this
expression as n tends to infinity. This is the limit, and Leibniz concludes that

S∞ = lim Sn
n→∞
 
2
= lim 2 −
n→∞ n+1
= 2−0
= 2

Leibniz’s argument for the second last line is simply that as n is allowed to grow without bound,
2
the fraction will become infinitely close to zero (yet paradoxically never get there. Hmmm
n+1
... Zeno? Is that you?)

It’s an argument that makes sense, because it’s true! However it is not quite as rigorous as we
would like, as we will come to see.
6
For a discussion of triangular numbers, see appendix B
7
Note that this can easily be shown by taking the right side and simplifying by getting a common denominator
of n(n + 1).

19
2.3.2 Newton Considers Instantaneous Rates Of Change

In 1704, Isaac Newton published De Quadratura Curvarum,

where he continued his investigation into instantaneous rates
of change. He had previously shown that if we have a function
y = xn , then infinitesimal changes in x result in infinitesimal
changes in y in a predictable way, and that in fact the ratio of the
infinitesimal change in y to the infinitesimal change in x, which
using his fluxion notation would be denoted as ẏ : ẋ, is nxn−1
(maybe we recognize this result...8 )

What Newton did in De quadratura curvarum was to show why

this was the case, by considering infinitesimal changes in the
independent variable x, as follows[1]:
Sir Issac Newton
(1642 – 1727)

First, we let o represent an infinitely small, non-zero value, and consider what the rate of change is
as x moves to x + o. We can use a simple slope analysis to understand what Newton did. Suppose
we have two points A(x, xn ), and B(x + o, (x + o)n ). Then the rate of change in y is the slope of
AB, as follows:
n(n−1) n−2 2 n(n−1)(n−2) n−3 3
(x + o)n − xn xn + n1 xn−1 o + 2·1
x o + 3·2·1
x o + · · · − xn
= (1)
x+o−x o
n(n−1) n−2 2 n(n−1)(n−2) n−3 3
nxn−1 o + 2·1
x o + 3·2·1
x o + ···
= (2)
o
 
n(n−1) n−2 n(n−1)(n−2) n−3 2
o nxn−1 + 2·1
x o + 3·2·1
x o + ···
= (3)
o
n(n − 1) n−2 n(n−1)(n−2) n−3 2
= nxn−1 + x o+ 3·2·1
x o + ··· (4)
2·1
= nxn−1 (5)
In line (1), Newton uses the Binomial Theorem9 to expand (x + o)n .

In line (2), the xn and −xn terms are canceled.

In line (3) the o is factored out from the remaining terms.

In line (4) the o in the numerator is canceled with the o in the denominator.

In line (5), Newton concludes that since o is infinitely small, it can be considered to have no
magnitude, and thus all terms still containing a factor of o are removed, leaving the ratio as nxn−1 .
Today we would question whether or not the equal sign on this line is warranted, since o is defined
as a non-zero value. However the result is valid! This is because of the limit. For although there is
no explicit use of the limit notation this is a very clear application of the concept, since Newton is
8
Of course today, every new calculus student learns this almost immediately, and knows it as the power rule for
derivatives!
9
see appendix C for a discussion on the Binomial Theorem

20
treating o in every way like a number, except at the end where he assumes that it has no magnitude.
Formally, what he did in this calculation was to evaluate

(x + h)n − xn
lim
h→0 h
which is what any student in an introductory calculus course today would recognize as the first
principles definition of the derivative of y = xn .

2.4 Bolzano and Weierstrass

While the contributions of Newton and Leibniz were critical, and could never be underestimated,
one thing neither man did was give more than an intuitive definition of things like infinitely small,
or infinitely large, and though there is evidence to support the notion that both men recognized
this as a failing in the rigor of their work, neither let this keep them from using intuition to advance
theories which in fact did prove to be correct when rigor was later applied. One of the first to apply
this level of rigor was Bernard Bolzano (1741-1848)[1][5].

Curiously, the work of Bolzano went largely unnoticed, and some of his most significant results were
actually independently reproduced by Karl Weierstrass (1815-1897)[1][6]. One of these results is
the epsilon-delta definition of the limit, and its close relationship to the definition of continuity of
a function.

2.4.1 Bolzano on Continuity

It would seem that mathematicians had long agreed that the paradoxes posed by Zeno existed
as a result of the continuous nature of time, and of motion, and of the unanswered burden that
placed on the mathematics developed to that point. Newton and Leibniz both accepted that time
and motion are continuous, and used this assumption to neglect infinitesimals while not treating
them as zero in arithmetic operations. Bolzano sought a more rigorous answer to the question of
the continuum. What he found was not different in substance from what had been developed by
Newton and Leibniz, but it was more formal. First, according to Boyer, he defined continuity of a
function as follows[1]:

... a function f (x) [is] continuous in an interval if for any value x in this interval the
difference f (x + ∆x) − f (x) becomes and remains less than any given quantity for ∆x
sufficiently small, whether positive or negative.

This definition of continuity is essentially the same as the one we use today. In a moment we’ll look
at an example, but first we should probably decipher the language a bit. Let’s create a mini-glossary
of terms (figure 7).

21
 Phrase
any given value
for ∆x sufficiently small,
whether positive or negative
Translation Algebraic Equivalent
A known quantity, say ,
that would be known to us, ∈R
but that may be anything
x + ∆x is within a specific
interval, say with width δ
centered around x, x − δ < x + ∆x < x + δ

becomes and remains less The calculation drops below

than any given value some value, say , and stays
below it. f (x + ∆x) − f (x) < 

Figure 7: Mini-glossary of phrases from Bolzano’s definition of continuity

Ok. We’re ready for that example. We’ll select a simple linear function so that we can illustrate
the concept without potentially getting lost in the algebra.

Suppose f (x) = 5x − 7. We’ll use Bolzano’s definition to show that the function is continuous
everywhere in R.

Let’s consider some quantity  > 0. We’d like to show that no matter what value is chosen for ,
we can find a ∆x small enough so that f (x + ∆x) and f (x) differ by less than . In other words,
we want

|f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| <


|5(x + ∆x) − 7 − (5x − 7)| <

|5x + 5∆x − 7 − 5x + 7| <

|5∆x| <

5|∆x| <


|∆x| <
5

At this point we know that if |∆x| < , we can satisfy Bolzano’s definition of continuity. However
5
there is a funny bit of logic that we must acknowledge, and it has to do with the way the definition
is stated10 . Specifically, the definition is stated in a such a way that we must show that

if ∆x is sufficiently small, then |f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| < ,

and this is technically not what we have done. Instead, because we started with the statement

|f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| <  and concluded with the statement |∆x| < , we have shown that
5


if |f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| < , then |∆x| < .
5
10
Refer to appendix E for a discussion of the unidirectional nature of logical “if...then” statements

22
This is okay though. Because now we can create a correct proof by starting with an assumption
about ∆x that may have seemed like magic if we hadn’t completed the work above. The proof goes
as follows, and in this case is really just the work we did above, only reversed.

Assume |∆x| < . Then
5

|∆x| <
5
5|∆x| < 
|5∆x| < 
|5x + 5∆x − 7 − 5x + 7| < 
|5(x + ∆x) − 7 − (5x − 7)| < 
|f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| < 

This is precisely what Bolzano is referring to in his definition. That is to say, we designated 
 
as the “given quantity”, and we have shown that if − < ∆x < then we can be sure that
5 5
|f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| < . So we can conclude that f (x) = 5x − 7 is continuous everywhere in R.

Logical nuance aside, this was a fairly straight-

forward example, in that we were really just
discussing a line. However it does demonstrate
Bolzano’s technique. It also demonstrates an
interesting property of lines, which is that the
upper and lower bounds we found for ∆x did not
depend at all on the value of x chosen – they
depended only on . This actually happens very
rarely and in this case is a result of the fact that
lines have a constant slope.

Consider the diagram in figure 8. We’ve used

Bolzano’s technique to show algebraically that if
the point P (x, 5x − 7) is a general point on the
line, and the point Q is some point “close” to
P , then we can ensure that the vertical distance
from P to Q is less than , by restricting the

horizontal distance from P to Q to .
5
In the diagram we can see from 4ABP that if
we want to keep Q to a vertical distance less than
, we need to set AB =  and make sure that
AB Figure 8: f (x) = 5x − 7, showing continuity.
P Q < P A. But we also see that actually
BP
represents the slope of the line, which we know to
be 5 based on the equation. So if we set AB = 

then P B = , this will satisfy the P Q < P A
5
requirement.

23
2.4.2 Weierstrass on Continuity

Weierstrass gave a formal definition of continuity of a function which was a slightly more elegant
restatement of the one given by Bolzano. It is not different in substance, but it does now make use
of the kind of notation we use to this day. It is as follows:

A function f (x) is continuous at x = x0 if for any given  > 0, there exists some δ > 0 so that
whenever |x − x0 | < δ, we can be sure that |f (x) − f (x0 )| < .

In fact, if we really want to look like cool mathematicians, we can make use of some logic symbols
to state this even more concisely (but perhaps more cryptically?):

A function f (x) is continuous at x = x0 if11

∀ > 0, ∃δ > 0, 3 |x − x0 | < δ ⇒ |f (x) − f (x0 )| < .

So let’s take a look at an example. This time, instead of doing a general example like we did with
the Bolzano definition, we’ll use the Weierstrass definition to show that a function is continuous at
a particular x-value. Note that this is for the purpose of showing that continuity can be considered
at specific points or on intervals, and not because the Weierstrass definition is really much different
from the Bolzano one. Here we go:

Suppose we wish to show that the function f (x) = 3x − 5 is continuous at x = 7. Then we need to
show that regardless of the value of  > 0 we choose, we can satisfy the above statement. Let’s see
how that looks.

Suppose we have some  > 0. Then we’d like to show that there is a δ so that if |x − 7| < δ then
|f (x) − f (7)| < .

Because absolute value ignores the sign of the argument, we can restate this relationship by saying
that given a value for  > 0 we want to show that there is some δ so that

if 7 − δ < x < 7 + δ, then f (7) −  < f (x) < f (7) + .

So as in the Bolzano example we start by working backwards. That is, we want

f (7) −  < f (x) < f (7) + 

3(7) − 5 −  < 3x − 5 < 3(7) − 5 + 

21 −  < 3x < 21 + 
 
7− <x<7+
3 3

And although we formally won’t show it here, we could now reverse this work, and show that δ =
3
satisfies Weierstrass’s definition of continuity.
11
In formal logic, the symbol ∀ means “for all”, the symbol ∃ means “there exists”, the symbol 3 means “such
that”, and the symbol ⇒ means “implies that”. Take some time to decipher the concise definition of continuity. It’s
worth the effort, because understanding how to read it makes you look cool!

24
2.5 Exercises

1. Refer to appendix A to learn about proof using Mathematical Induction. Use induction to
xi−1 + 2
show that if x0 = 1 and xi = , then xi−1 < xi < 2 for all i ∈ N.
2
√
2. Use the Babylonian Square Root Algorithm to evaluate 5, correct to 4 decimal places.
√
3. A common method for estimating 2 is done by using the continued fraction representation,
which is as follows[7]:
√ 1
2=1+
2 + 2+ 1 1
..
2+ .

Using the Babylonian method for determining square root, start with a0 = 2 and calculate a1
and a2 . Use these calculations to show informally how the Babylonian method for determining
square root is related to this continued fraction representation.

4. A geometric series is one of the form Sn = a + ar + ar2 + · · · + arn−1 .

(a) Given Sn = a + ar + ar2 + · · · + arn , write an expression for rSn .

(b) Use your answer from (a) to write an expression for Sn − rSn
a(1 − rn )
(c) Use your answer from (b) to show that Sn = , for r 6= 1.
1−r
a
(d) Use Leibniz’s limit technique to show that, if 0 < r < 1, then S∞ =
1−r
5. Refer to Appendix C for the Binomial Theorem, which allows us to expand expressions of the
form (x + y)n .
1
(a) Write out the first 3 terms of the expansion of (x + o) 3
1
(b) Use Newton’s method to determine ẏ : ẋ, if y = x 3

6. Use Bolzano’s method to show that f (x) = −2x + 5 is continuous on R.

2
7. Use Weierstrass’s method to show that f (x) = x + 5 is continuous at x = 3.
3

25
3 Epsilon Meets Delta – Formally

The work of people like Bolzano and Weierstrass (to name but two) has ultimately led to a formal
definition for limits that does not rely on an intuitive definition of infinitely small or infinitely large
quantities. This definition is known as the (, δ) definition (say “epsilon-delta definition”) of the
limit. Specifically, we say that
lim f (x) = L
x→a

if for every  > 0, there exists some δ > 0 so that if 0 < |x − a| < δ then |f (x) − L| < .

More concisely,
lim f (x) = L
x→a

if
∀ > 0, ∃δ > 0 3 0 < |x − a| < δ ⇒ |f (x) − L| < .

There are two important things to notice about this definition. First, the statement 0 < |x − a| < δ
means that we need not consider the case where x = a, and second, the statement |f (x) − L| < 
means that f (a) need not itself be defined, and if it is defined, it need not be equal to L. These facts
are related. By not concerning ourselves with what happens if x = a, we are also not concerned
about what f (a) might be. We are only concerned with values of f (x) given x-values close to a,
and if the values for f (x) are converging on some limit, L.

We’ll look at some examples that demonstrate some of the nuances of this definition, but first, let’s
have story time!

3.1 The Tale of Eldridge and Rachel

Once upon a time, there was a young boy named Eldridge, who was very much in love
with a girl named Rachel. The only problem was, Rachel had no idea about Eldridge’s
feelings for her. They were friends, and spent much time together, but the relationship
was not a romantic one. Each day when Eldridge would get ready to go to school, he
would tell himself that this would be the day when he would confess his feelings to Rachel,
but he could never quite bring himself to do it, because he wasn’t sure if she felt the same
way. Eldridge decided to ask his friends to see if they could find out how Rachel might
feel about a romantic relationship with Eldridge. This his friends gladly did, and they
reported to him that Rachel had said more than once that she thought Eldridge was a
fine young man, and one she could see herself in a relationship with. Finally, Eldridge
got up the nerve to speak to Rachel about it, and decided that the upcoming prom would
be a great event to use as the catalyst. So he arranged for a time when he and Rachel
could be alone, and when they were, he confessed his love to her and asked if she would
go to the prom with him.

Whereupon Rachel screamed in horror and slapped Eldridge across the face for daring
to presume that she would want to get involved with him romantically.

The following week Eldridge and Rachel went to the prom together, and had a wonderful
time. They dated for years and eventually got married, and lived happily ever after.

26
Aside from being a gripping tale of young love, there is an interesting feature to the story. That is
to say that everything leading up to and following Rachel’s scream is consistent with her sharing
Eldridge’s feelings and agreeing to go to the prom with him. In calculus, we’d say that the limit,
as Eldridge approached Rachel about going to the prom, was that that she said yes. The fact that
she said no is important, but does not change the truth of the fact that, viewed from either side of
the story, events were consistent with her saying yes!

3.2 (, δ) Examples

The best way to understand limits, and the formal definition, is to look at examples. There are
some fairly standard types of functions that demonstrate some fundamental limit concepts.

3.2.1 Linear Functions

Consider the linear function f (x) = 3x − 7. This function has no restrictions on its domain, and
if we choose some specific value for x, say x = −4 then we can easily evaluate the function at this
point to get f (−4) = −19. So it comes as no surprise that

lim (3x − 7) = −19

x→−4

Let’s see if we can show that this is true using the formal definition.

Suppose we have some  > 0.

We wish to show that there exists some δ > 0 so that if 0 < |x − (−4)| < δ then |f (x) − (−19)| < .

So, working backwards, we want

−19 −  < 3x − 7 < −19 + 

Which we can work with, as follows:

−19 −  + 7 < 3x < −19 +  + 7

−12 −  < 3x < −12 + 

 
−4 − < x < −4 +
3 3

and by reversing the work above, we can see that if δ = we have satisfied the formal definition,
3

since both sides of the inequality show a deviation for x from −4 of at most .
3

3.2.2 Rational Functions

x−3
Consider the rational function f (x) = .
x2 − 9
Due to the denominator x2 − 9, this function has two implicit domain restrictions – specifically,
x 6= ±3, since either of these values would result in division by zero.

27
Now of course the function can be simplified algebraically, but the simplification will not change
the domain restrictions! This is because the original definition of the function has and always will
have a denominator of x2 − 9. Let’s simplify it though, and think about what it means.
x−3
f (x) =
x2 − 9
x−3
=
(x − 3)(x + 3)
1
= , x 6= ±3
x+3
Note that stating the restrictions in the last line is critical, because although the restriction x 6= −3
is still algebraically necessary, the restriction x 6= 3 no longer is, and thus needs to be explicitly
mentioned.
1
Very specifically, this means that our function f (x) is equal to a different function, say g(x) =
x+3
for every possible x-value in the domain of g(x), except at x = 3, where g(x) is well-defined, but
f (x) is not defined at all.

Okay. So what does this mean to us in the context of limits?

Well consider the following limit:

x−3
lim
x→3 x2 − 9

Our function is not defined at x = 3, but the (, δ) definition of the limit is not troubled by this,
since the definition, as it applies to this example, contains the clause 0 < |x − 3| < δ. Because the
expression |x − 3| must be strictly greater than 0, we can safely ignore what actually happens at
the limiting value x = 3.

Algebraically, we can do the following:

x−3 x−3
lim = lim (1)
x→3 x2 − 9 x→3 (x − 3)(x + 3)
1
= lim (2)
x→3 x + 3
1
= (3)
3+3
1
= (4)
6
The critical moment in the calculation here is line (2), where the function is simplified, and the
restriction x 6= 3 is not necessary! This is completely due to the formal definition of the limit. Let’s
have a look.

Our claim is that

x−3 1
lim2
=
x→3 x − 9 6
Using the formal definition, we need to ensure that for any  > 0, there exists some δ > 0 so that if
0 < |x − 3| < δ
then
x−3 1
2
− < .
x −9 6

28
Equivalently, we want to find some δ so that if

x ∈ (3 − δ, 3 + δ), x 6= 3,

then  
x−3 1 1
∈ − , + 
x2 − 9 6 6

Now to show that this works for any given  is somewhat complicated, and the complexity of the
algebra can obscure the concept. So what we’ll do is pick a numeric value for  and see if we can
1
do some rough work to determine a suitable δ. Suppose we take  = .
12
Then we want
1 1 x−3 1 1
− < 2 < +
6 12 x −9 6 12
1 x−3 1
< 2 <
12 x −9 4
Since x 6= 3, we can simplify this to
1 1 1
< <
12 x+3 4
Equivalently,
12 > x + 3 > 4
9>x>1
and if we write this in the order we prefer seeing (lower bound on left, upper bound on right), we
get
1<x<9
Now, because x = 3 is the limiting value we are considering, we’ll rewrite our inequality in terms
of deviation from x = 3:
3−2<x<3+6
Comparing 2 to 6, we see that the lower bound restriction is more strict. So it appears that we can
1
choose δ = 2 and satisfy the (, δ) definition given  = .
12
Let’s reverse the process and prove that this is in fact the case.

So suppose we know that 0 < |x − 3| < 2. Then

−2 < x − 3 < 2, x 6= 3

To improve readability, we’ll refrain from writing x 6= 3 from here on in, but we won’t forget that
it’s true!

Now what we want to do is slowly build this back so that we have information about f (x). This
can be done as follows (note it is mostly a simple reversal of how we arrived at our choice for δ):

First, add 3 across the inequality to isolate x:

1<x<5

Now, add 3 across the inequality again to start to reconstruct f (x):

4<x+3<8

29
Now since we know we are dealing with all positive values, we can take reciprocals:
1 1 1
> >
4 x+3 8
Rewrite in the order we like:
1 1 1
< <
8 x+3 4
1 1 1 1 1 1
Now, because < and we have shown that > , we can conclude that > , which
12 8 x+3 8 x+3 12
1
we want to do because we are getting ready for the limit which we are proving is :
6
1 1 3
< <
12 x+3 12
1
Now introduce :
6
1 1 1 1 1
− < < +
6 12 x+3 6 12
1 x−3
And now because we know that x 6= 3, we can multiply the expression by with no fear
x+3 x−3
of creating something indeterminate:
1 1 x−3 1 1
− < 2 < +
6 12 x −3 6 12
And we have what we wanted!

So to be specific, we have shown that if

0 < |x − 3| < 2

then
1 1 x−3 1 1
− < 2 < +
6 12 x −9 6 12
1
And while this is not a proof that the limit is (to do that we would need to show that we could
6
find a δ for any  > 0), it does demonstrate how one can go about determining an appropriate δ
for a given .

3.2.3 Getting Radical: Finding δ For a Given  in a Function With Radicals

x−6
Consider the function f (x) = √ .
x−5−1
In addition to the domain restriction x ≥ 5 necessitated by the radical, this function also has the
0
implicit domain restriction x 6= 6, since x = 6 would result in the indeterminate12 fraction . Yet
0
12
see appendix D for a discussion about the term indeterminate

30
it is still possible for us to evaluate the limit as x → 6 algebraically, as follows:
√
x−6 x−6 x−5+1
lim √ = lim √ ×√
x→6 x−5−1 x→6 x−5−1 x−5+1
√

(x − 6) x − 5 + 1
= lim √
√

x→6 x−5−1 x−5+1
√

(x − 6) x − 5 + 1
= lim
x→6 x −√5 − 1

(x − 6) x − 5 + 1
= lim
x→6
√ x−6
= lim x − 5 + 1
x→6
√
= 6−5+1
= 1+1
= 2

This process is correct, and the limit is actually 2. But can we find a δ for some given ? Let’s see.

Suppose we want  = 0.1. Then we want a δ so that if x ∈ (6−δ, 6+δ), x 6= 6, then 1.9 < f (x) < 2.1.

Let’s consider the upper bound first. To decide if the upper bound for f (x) would happen to the
right or left of x = 6, we’ll use software to look at the graph (figure 9) and see that f (x) is increasing.
This means the upper bound for f (x) should happen to the right of x = 6.

x−6
Figure 9: f (x) = √
x−5−1

31
So we want

f (6 + δ) < 2.1
6+δ−6
√ < 2.1
6+δ−5−1
δ
√ < 2.1
δ+1−1
√ 
δ < 2.1 δ+1−1 (since δ > 0)
√
δ < 2.1 δ + 1 − 2.1
√
δ + 2.1 < 2.1 δ + 1
δ 2 + 4.2δ + 4.41 < 4.41(δ + 1) (once again, since δ > 0)
δ 2 − 0.21δ < 0
δ(δ − 0.21) < 0
δ − 0.21 < 0 (yet again, since δ > 0)
δ < 0.21

So any value for δ that is less than 0.21 will suffice for the upper bound side of the inequality. Now
let’s look at the lower bound.

This time we want

f (6 − δ) > 1.9
6−δ−6
√ > 1.9
6−δ−5−1
−δ
√ > 1.9
−δ + 1 − 1
Note this means that we now have a further restriction on δ beyond positivity. Specifically now we
need 0 < δ < 1 in order to be sure we’re not trying to take the square root of a negative value.
√ √
Also note that the denominator −δ + 1 − 1 < 0, since the restriction on δ means −δ + 1 < 1.

So the inequality becomes

√ 
−δ < 1.9 −δ + 1 − 1 (since 0 < δ < 1)
√
−δ < 1.9 −δ + 1 − 1.9
√
−δ + 1.9 < 1.9 −δ + 1
δ 2 − 3.8δ + 3.61 < 3.61(−δ + 1) (since 0 < δ < 1)
δ 2 − 0.19δ < 0
δ(δ − 0.19) < 0
δ − 0.19 < 0 (since 0 < δ < 1)
δ < 0.19

Now we compare the two results δ < 0.21 and δ < 0.19, and we can choose any value for δ that
is less than 0.19, say, δ = 0.1. Based on our analysis, we know that this value for δ will ensure
compliance with  = 0.1. Once again, while we have not technically proven the limit using the (, δ)
definition, this example demonstrates a technique for selecting a value of δ given a value of  > 0.

32
3.3 Limits Involving Infinity

Another type of limit occurs when we look at what happens to a function when the independent
variable is allowed to grow (or shrink) without bound. More specifically, what happens as the
independent variable approaches infinity, or negative infinity. The formal definition states that

lim f (x) = L
x→∞

if, for every  > 0, there exists some cutoff value N > 0 such that if x > N , then |f (x) − L| < .
Similarly,
lim f (x) = L
x→−∞

if, for every  > 0, there exists some cutoff value N < 0 such that if x < N , then |f (x) − L| < .

Initially, limits involving infinity are fairly easy to understand, since they generally involve quantities
which tend toward zero, and we intuitively think of them as zero. Consider a simple example, using
1
f (x) = . Here we have
x
lim f (x) = 0
x→∞

which makes intuitive sense, since as x is allowed to grow without bound, the quotient 1 ÷ x
approaches zero but always remains positive. However we can do better than intuition by applying
the formal definition. We want to be able to select any  > 0 and show that

1
−0 <
x

if x is made to be sufficiently large. Of course subtracting 0 does not really make a difference, and
since the definition requires a cutoff value N > 0, we can drop the absolute value brackets and state
1
simply that we need N > 0 such that if x > N then < . This is easily accomplished by setting
x
1
N = since

1
x >

⇒ x > 1
1
⇒ >
x
which is precisely the result we need.
3x − 4
Let’s see if we can do this with a slightly more challenging function. Consider f (x) = .
2x + 1
First, we can do some strange-looking algebra to gain an intuitive understanding of the limit in-
volving infinity:
1
3x − 4 3x − 4 x
lim = lim × 1
x→∞ 2x + 1 x→∞ 2x + 1
x
4
3− x
= lim 1
x→∞ 2 +
x

33
 4 1
Now as x grows without bound, the quotients and tend to zero, so we want to believe that the
x x
3
resulting limit is , which in fact it is! But can we prove it without resorting to intuition? Let’s
2
see ...
3x − 4 3
Suppose we have some  > 0. We need a cutoff N > 0 so that if x > N then − < .
2x + 1 2
Let’s play a little:
3x − 4 3
− < 
2x + 1 2
2(3x − 4) 3(2x + 1)
− < 
2(2x + 1) 2(2x + 1)
−11
< 
4x + 2
The absolute value signs can be confusing, but here we are considering positive x-values, so we can
drop the absolute values from the inequality by changing the −11 to 11. So
11
< 
4x + 2
11 < (4x + 2)
11 < 4x + 8
11 − 8 < 4x
11 − 8
< x
4

Now there is a possibility that for large enough values of , the left side of the inequality is negative,
and we don’t want that to happen for our cutoff. However this is not a problem. When finding a
cutoff value, there is no requirement that we find the lowest such cutoff. Therefore, if we have some
expression that would work as a cutoff, any expression that exceeds it will also work. So if we end
up with a negative value as a suitable cutoff, we can always select any positive value to work as
well, since any positive value would exceed the negative.

Therefore, since we need for x to exceed the expression on the left, if that expression is negative we
could arbitrarily choose N = 1 and know that it would suffice.
 
11 − 8
So given any  > 0, we can set N = max 1, and we are guaranteed that if x > N
4
3x − 4 3
then − < , which is precisely what we need to show that the result we determined
2x + 1 2
algebraically and that we understood intuitively was in fact correct.

3.4 Exercises
 
2
1. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim x+5 = 9.
x→6 3
x2 − 16
2. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim = 8.
x→4 x − 4

34
 x−3
3. Consider the function f (x) = √
x+6−3
(a) Show algebraically that lim f (x) = 6
x→3

(b) Find a δ > 0 that will satisfy the (, δ) definition of the limit, using the value  = 0.1.
1
4. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim = 0.
x→∞ x2

2x + 3
5. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim = 2.
x→∞ x−1

35
4 Solutions to Exercises

4.1 Solutions For Section 1.5

1. Sam and Catherine are going to have a race. Sam can run at a speed of 6.1 m/s, while
Catherine can run at a speed of 4.8 m/s. The race will be 200 m long. Catherine will have a
15 m headstart.

(a) How long will it take Sam to finish the race?

Solution
200
Using d = st, we know that it will take Sam ≈ 32.8 seconds to finish the race.
6.1

(b) How long will it take Catherine to finish the race?

Solution
Using d = st, and given that Catherine has a 15 meter headstart, we know that it will
200 − 15
take Catherine ≈ 38.5 seconds to finish the race.
4.8

(c) Determine a function g(n) that we could use to model the gap between Sam and Cather-
ine, where n represents the stage of the race where Sam has to catch up to the position
where Catherine was at the start of the stage. Note that g(0) = 15.

Solution
4.8
Here we can use the function g(n) = hrn , where r = , and h = 15. So we will use
6.1
 n
4.8
g(n) = 15
6.1

(d) Use your function to determine the gap between Sam and Catherine after 5.2 seconds,
correct to the nearest hundredth of a meter.

Solution
Substitute n = 5.2 into g(n) to get g(5.2) ≈ 4.31. So the gap will be approximately 4.31
meters.

(e) How long will it take before Sam catches up to Catherine? Give your answer to the
nearest hundredth of a second.

Solution
Let ds represent the distance, in meters, traveled by Sam t seconds after the start of the
race, and dc represent the distance, in meters, traveled by Catherine t seconds after the
start of the race. Since Catherine has a 15 m headstart, we want to solve ds = dc + 15.

36
 However, because we know the running speed of each racer, we know that ds = 6.1t and
dc = 4.8t. Therefore we must solve

ds = dc + 15
6.1t = 4.8t + 15
1.3t = 15
15
t =
1.3
≈ 11.54

So Sam will catch up to Catherine after approximately 11.54 seconds.

(f) What distance could we shorten the race to if we wanted the runners to tie?

Solution
15
Using our answer from (1e), we know that Sam catches up after seconds.
1.3
So if we want the runners to tie, we need to shorten the race so that it ends after 11.54
seconds. We can use Sam’s speed to determine what distance that would be. Specifically,
15
we’d want the race to end at a distance of d = 6.1 × ≈ 70.38 meters.
1.3
2. Evaluate the following limits, if possible.
 n
1
(a) lim
n→∞ 2
Solution  n
1 1
Since < 1, the greater n is the less would be. So though it can never be zero,
2 2
we can make itas 
close to zero as we want by choosing appropriately large values of n.
n
1
Therefore lim =0
n→∞ 2
(b) lim 2n
n→−∞

Solution  n
1
Since n → −∞, the expression 2n will behave the same way as does as n → ∞.
2
Therefore by the same reasoning as above, lim 2n = 0
n→−∞
1
(c) lim
n→∞ n
Solution
1
If we let n grow without bound, then the fraction will continue to decrease, but always
n
1
remain positive. So lim = 0
n→∞ n

37
 1
(d) lim
n→0 n

Solution
1
If we look at when n < 1, then as n gets closer and closer to zero, the fraction will
n
1
increase without bound. Therefore lim “ = ”∞, which is to say that the limit does not
n→0 n
exist.

3. Refer to appendix A for an explanation of mathematical induction, and then use induction to
prove that the gap formula for Stage n of the Usain vs. Teddy example is correct. Recall the
claim is that the gap can be modeled by the function
 n
0.075
g(n) = 25 , for n ∈ W.
10.4

Solution
Let P (n) represent the statement
 n
0.075
The gap in stage n can be modeled by the function g(n) = 25
10.4

We’ll use induction to prove that P (n) is true for all n ∈ W.

Base Case: Show that P (0) is true.

This refers to Stage 0 of the race, when we know  that 
the gap is 25 m, owing to the head
0
0.075
start. The formula respects this, since g(0) = 25 = 25. Thus P (0) is true.
10.4

Inductive Hypothesis: Assume that P (k) is true.

 k
0.075
Specifically, we are assuming that the gap in stage k can be modeled by g(k) = 25
10.4
for some k ∈ W.

Inductive Step: Show that P (k + 1) is true.

 k+1
0.075
Specifically, we will show that the gap in stage k+1 can be modeled by g(k+1) = 25 .
10.4
 k
0.075
Well we know from the inductive hypothesis that the gap in stage k is g(k) = 25 .
10.4

38
 So that Usain must close this distance during stage k + 1. Let’s analyze this:
 k
0.075
Time for Usain to complete Stage k + 1 = 25 ÷ 10.4
10.4
0.075k
 
= 25
10.4k+1
0.075k
 
Distance Teddy traveled in Stage k + 1 = 25 × 0.075
10.4k+1
 k+1
0.075
= 25
10.4
Which is precisely what we needed to show.
Therefore, by the principal of mathematical induction, we have show that in the
nUsain vs.
0.075
Teddy race, the gap in stage n can be modeled by the function g(n) = 25 .
10.4
4. Zeno offered another paradox, known as The Arrow Paradox, and once again it involves
motion. For motion to occur, an object must change position. However Zeno argues that if
we consider an instant in time during the flight of an arrow, then the arrow is not moving to
where it is (since it is already there), and it cannot move to where it is not, since no time
elapses in an instant. Therefore in any instant the arrow is motionless, and since time is made
up of instants, an arrow in flight should not be able to move at all [9].
(a) How is The Arrow Paradox different from Achilles and the Tortoise?

Solution
In Achilles and the Tortoise Zeno is taking the distances that must be covered by each
runner and dividing them into ever-shrinking intervals that never reach zero. On the
other hand, in the Arrow Paradox, Zeno is taking the time that an arrow would be in
flight, and breaking that time into moments. So instead of analyzing forever-shrinking
intervals of distance, he is going right to the infinitesimal points in time, and arguing
that no motion can occur in these instants, which means the arrow cannot move.

(b) What is the flaw in The Arrow Paradox?

(Note: The answer to this question is very much an ongoing debate!)

Solution
Answers will definitely vary. However one way to look at it is that once again Zeno is
applying discrete mathematics to a continuous scenario. We have no trouble defining
the average speed of an object in motion over some interval of time by evaluating the
change in position of the object (often referred to as ∆s) and dividing by the duration of
time (often referred to as ∆t). However by attempting to analyze motion in an instant
(∆s = 0, ∆t = 0), Zeno is forcing us to consider dividing zero by zero, which produces
an indeterminate result. In fact, Zeno completely ignores the division by zero inherent in
the problem, and draws our attention mostly to the zero numerator (the lack of motion),
using the zero denominator (lack of time) to justify the numerator. Calculus once again
resolves this issue by rigorously defining
∆s
lim .
∆t→0 ∆t

39
 In fact, this is the definition of the derivative of position of an object in motion!

4.2 Solutions For Section 2.5

1. Refer to appendix A to learn about proof using Mathematical Induction. Use induction to
xi−1 + 2
show that if x0 = 1 and xi = , then xi−1 < xi < 2 for all i ∈ N.
2

Solution
Let P (n) represent the statement

xn−1 + 2
if x0 = 1 and xn = , then xn−1 < xn < 2
2

Base Case: Show that P (1) is true.

0+2
By definition, x1 = = 1, and clearly, 0 < 1 < 2, so P (1) is true.
2

Inductive Hypothesis: Assume that P (k) is true.

Specifically, we are assuming that xk−1 < xk < 2 for some k ∈ N.

Inductive Step: Show that P (k + 1) is true.

Specifically, we will show that xk < xk+1 < 2.
xk + 2
By definition, we know that xk+1 = . Let’s see where that leads.
2
xk + 2
xk+1 =
2
xk
= +1
2
But our inductive hypothesis says that xk < 2, so
2
xk+1 < +1
2
< 2

This is half of the inequality we need to show. For the other half, xk < xk+1 , we’ll use some
nifty algebra:
xk + 2
xk+1 =
2
xk
= xk + 1 −
2
xk
Once again, we refer to our inductive hypothesis, which says that xk < 2, so that < 1,
2
xk
which means that 1 − > 0. Thus
2
xk
xk+1 = xk + 1 −
2
> xk

40
 and we have what we need. Specifically, that xk < xk+1 < 2.
Therefore, by the principal of mathematical induction, we have show that if x0 = 1 and
xi−1 + 2
xi = , then xi−1 < xi < 2 for all i ∈ N.
2
√
2. Use the Babylonian Square Root Algorithm to evaluate 5, correct to 4 decimal places.

Solution
Answers will vary based on initial guess. Let’s use an initial guess of 2.

Iteration (i) Estimate (ai ) bi

5
1 2 5÷2= = 2.5
2

1 9 9 20
2 (2 + 52 ) = = 2.25 5÷ =
2 4 4 9

 
1 9 20 161 161 360
3 + = = 2.2361̇ 5÷ =
2 4 9 72 72 161

 
1 161 360 51841 51841 115920
4 + = = 2.23606... 5÷ =
2 72 161 23184 23184 51841

 
1 51841 115920 5374978561
5 + = = 2.23606... NA
2 23184 51841 2403763488

Since the last two iterations

√ did not produce results that were different in the 5th decimal
place, we have that 5 ≈ 2.2361, correct to 4 decimal places.
√
3. A common method for estimating 2 is done by using the continued fraction representation,
which is as follows[7]:
√ 1
2=1+
2 + 2+ 1 1
..
2+ .

Using the Babylonian method for determining square root, start with a0 = 2 and calculate a1
and a2 . Use these calculations to show informally how the Babylonian method for determining
square root is related to this continued fraction representation.

Solution
ai−1 + bi−1 2
The Babylonian method relies on the calculation ai = , where bi−1 = . So then
2 ai−1

41
 we could restate ai in terms of its predecessor, ai−1 , as follows:
ai−1 + bi−1
ai =
2
2
ai−1 + ai−1
=
2
ai−1 1
= +
2 ai−1
So if we set a0 = 2, we’d get
a0 1
a1 = +
2 a0
2 1
= +
2 2
1
= 1+
2

a1 1
a2 = +
2 a1
1
1+ 2 1
= + 1
2 1+ 2
3 2
= +
4 3
9 8
= +
12 12
12 5
= +
12 12
1
= 1 + 12
5
1
= 1+ 2
2+ 5
1
= 1+ 1
2+ 5
2
1
= 1+
2 + 2+1 1
2

We can see that a1 and a2 both conform to the format of the continued fraction. This pattern
does continue, though we will not show that here.

4. A geometric series is one of the form Sn = a + ar + ar2 + · · · + arn−1 .

(a) Given Sn = a + ar + ar2 + · · · + arn , write an expression for rSn .

Solution
rSn = ar + ar2 + ar3 + · · · + arn−1 + arn

(b) Use your answer from (a) to write an expression for Sn − rSn

42
 Solution

Sn − rSn = a + ar + ar2 + · · · + arn−1 − (ar + ar2 + ar3 + · · · + arn−1 + arn )

= a − arn

a(1 − rn )
(c) Use your answer from (b) to show that Sn = , for r 6= 1.
1−r
Solution

Sn − rSn = a − arn
Sn (1 − r) = a(1 − rn )
a(1 − rn )
Sn = (since r 6= 1)
1−r

a
(d) Use Leibniz’s limit technique to show that, if 0 < r < 1, then S∞ =
1−r
Solution

S∞ = lim Sn
n→∞
a(1 − rn )
= lim
1−r
n→∞
arn

a
= lim +
n→∞ 1−r 1−r

Now Leibniz would argue that since 0 < r < 1, arn will tend toward zero as n grows
arn
without bound. Since 1 − r is a fixed quantity, the expression will therefore tend
1−r
a
toward zero. Thus S∞ = , for 0 < r < 1.
1−r
5. Refer to Appendix C for the Binomial Theorem, which allows us to expand expressions of the
form (x + y)n .
1
(a) Write out the first 3 terms of the expansion of (x + o) 3

Solution
∞ 1 1
( − 1) 13 − 2 · · · 13 − r + 1 1 −r r



1
X
3 3
(x + o) 3 = x3 o
r=0
r(r − 1)(r − 2) · · · (2)(1)
1 2


1 1 −2 × − 5
= x3 + x 3 o + 3 3
x− 3 o 2 + · · ·
3 2·1

1
(b) Use Newton’s method to determine ẏ : ẋ, if y = x 3

Solution
First, we let o represent an infinitely small, non-zero value, and consider what the rate
of change is as x moves to x + o. We can use a simple slope analysis to understand what

43
 Newton did. Suppose we have two points A(x, xn ), and B(x + o, (x + o)n ). Then the rate
of change in y is the slope of AB, as follows:
1 1
(x + o) 3 − x 3
ẏ : ẋ =
x+o−x
1
1 2 × (− 23 ) 5 1
x 3 + 13 x− 3 o + 3
2·1
x− 3 o2 + · · · − x 3
=
o
1
1 − 23 × (− 32 ) − 53 2
3
x o + 3
2·1
x o + ···
=
o
 1

1 − 23 × (− 23 ) − 53
o 3
x + 3
2·1
x o + ···
=
o
1
× − 23 − 5


1 −2 3
= x 3+ x 3o + ···
3 2·1
1 −2
= x 3
3

6. Use Bolzano’s method to show that f (x) = −2x + 5 is continuous on R.

Solution
Let’s consider some quantity  > 0. We’d like to show that no matter what value is chosen
for , we can find a ∆x small enough so that f (x + ∆x) and f (x) differ by less than . In
other words, we want

|f (x + ∆x) − f (x)|  <

| − 2(x + ∆x) + 5 − (−2x + 5)|  <
| − 2x − 2∆x + 5 + 2x − 5|  <
| − 2∆x|  <
2|∆x|  <

|∆x| <
2

At this point we know that if |∆x| < , we can satisfy Bolzano’s definition of continuity.
2
Let’s formally prove it.

Assume |∆x| < . Then
2

|∆x| <
2
2|∆x| < 
| − 2∆x| < 
| − 2x − 2∆x + 5 + 2x − 5| < 
| − 2(x + ∆x) + 5 − (−2x + 5)| < 
|f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| < 

44
  
So we have shown that if − < ∆x < then we can be sure that |f (x + ∆x) − f (x)| < .
2 2
So by Bolzano’s definition of continuity we can conclude that f (x) = −2x + 5 is continuous
everywhere in R.
2
7. Use Weierstrass’s method to show that f (x) = x + 5 is continuous at x = 3.
3

Solution
Suppose we have some  > 0. Then we’d like to show that there is a δ so that if |x − 3| < δ
then |f (x) − f (3)| < .
Because absolute value ignores the sign of the argument, we can restate this relationship by
saying that given a value for  > 0 we want to show that there is some δ so that

if 3 − δ < x < 3 + δ, then f (3) −  < f (x) < f (3) + .

That is, we want

f (3) −  < f (x) < f (3) + 
2 2 2
(3) + 5 −  < x + 5 < (3) + 5 + 
3 3 3
2
2−< x<2+
3
3 3
3− <x<3+
2 2

3
At this point we know that a value of δ = , will satisfy Weierstrass’s definition of continuity.
2
Let’s formally prove it.
3
Assume 0 < |x − 3| < . Then x 6= 3 and
2
3 3
3− <x<3+
2 2
2
2−< x<2+
3
2 2 2
(3) + 5 −  < x + 5 < (3) + 5 + 
3 3 3
f (3) −  < f (x) < f (3) + 
|f (x) − f (3)| < 
2
So by Weierstrass’s definition of continuity we can conclude that f (x) = x + 5 is continuous
3
at x = 3.

45
4.3 Solutions For Section 3.4
 
2
1. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim x+5 = 9.
x→6 3

Solution
2
Suppose we have some  > 0. Let f (x) = x + 5.
3
We wish to show that there exists some δ > 0 so that if 0 < |x − 6| < δ then |f (x) − 9| < .
So, working backwards, we want
2
9−< x+5<9+
3
Which we can work with, as follows:
2
9−−5< x<9+−5
3
2
4−< x<4+
3
3 3
6− <x<6+
2 2
3
So now let’s reverse the work above, and show that if δ = then we have satisfied the formal
2
definition.
3
Suppose 0 < |x − 6| < . Then x 6= 6 and
2
3 3
6− <x<6+
2 2
2
4−< x<4+
3
2
9−−5< x<9+−5
3
2
9−< x+5<9+
3
|f (x) − 9| < 
 
2
which is precisely what we needed to see to show that lim x + 5 = 9.
x→6 3
x2 − 16
2. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim = 8.
x→4 x − 4

Solution
x2 − 16
Suppose we have some  > 0. Let f (x) = .
x−4
We wish to show that there exists some δ > 0 so that if 0 < |x − 4| < δ then |f (x) − 8| < .
So, working backwards, we want
x2 − 16
8−< <8+
x−4

46
 (x + 4)(x − 4)
8−< <8+
x−4
Now we can state x 6= 4 and simplify:

8−<x+4<8+

4−<x<4+
And it seems that if δ =  then we’ll have satisfied the formal definition. Let’s prove it.
Suppose 0 < |x − 4| < . Then x 6= 4 and

4−<x<4+

8−<x+4<8+
Now since x 6= 4 we can say that
(x + 4)(x − 4)
8−< <8+
x−4
x2 − 16
8−< <8+
x−4
|f (x) − 8| < 
x2 − 16
which is precisely what we needed to see to show that lim = 8.
x→4 x − 4

x−3
3. Consider the function f (x) = √
x+6−3
(a) Show algebraically that lim f (x) = 6
x→3

Solution
x−3
lim f (x) = lim √
x→3 x→3 x+6−3
√
x−3 x+6+3
= lim √ ×√
x→3 x+6−3 x+6+3
√

(x − 3) x + 6 + 3
= lim
x→3 x +√6 − 9

(x − 3) x + 6 + 3
= lim
x→3
√ x − 3
= lim x+6+3
x→3
√
= 3+6+3
= 6

as required.
(b) Find a δ > 0 that will satisfy the (, δ) definition of the limit, using the value  = 0.1.

Solution
Since we are using  = 0.1, we want a δ so that if x ∈ (3 − δ, 3 + δ), x 6= 3, then
5.9 < f (x) < 6.1. We’ll work backwards to determine a suitable δ.

47
 x−3
Figure 10: f (x) = √
x+6−3

Let’s consider the upper bound first. To decide if the upper bound for f (x) would happen
to the right or left of x = 3, we’ll use software to look at the graph (figure 10) and see
that f (x) is increasing. This means the upper bound for f (x) should happen to the right
of x = 3.
So we want

f (3 + δ) < 6.1
3+δ−3
√ < 6.1
3+δ+6−3
δ
√ < 5.1
δ+9−3
√ 
δ < 6.1 δ+9−3 (since δ > 0)
√
δ < 6.1 δ + 9 − 18.3
√
δ + 18.3 < 6.1 δ + 9
δ 2 + 36.6δ + 334.89 < 37.21(δ + 9) (once again, since δ > 0)
δ 2 − 0.61δ < 0
δ(δ − 0.61) < 0
δ − 0.61 < 0 (yet again, since δ > 0)
δ < 0.61

So any value for δ that is less than 0.61 will suffice for the upper bound side of the
inequality. Now let’s look at the lower bound.

48
 This time we want

f (3 − δ) > 5.9
3−δ−3
√ > 5.9
3−δ+6−3
−δ
√ > 5.9
−δ + 9 − 3
Note this means that we now have a further restriction on δ beyond positivity. Specifically
now we need 0 < δ < 9 in order to be sure we’re not trying to take the square root of a
negative value.
√
Also
√ note that the denominator −δ + 9 − 3 < 0, since the restriction on δ means
−δ + 9 < 3.
So the inequality becomes
√ 
−δ < 5.9 −δ + 9 − 3 (since 0 < δ < 1)
√
−δ < 5.9 −δ + 9 − 17.7
√
−δ + 17.7 < 5.9 −δ + 9
δ 2 − 35.4δ + 313.29 < 34.81(−δ + 9) (since 0 < δ < 1)
δ 2 − 0.59δ < 0
δ(δ − 0.59) < 0
δ − 0.59 < 0 (since 0 < δ < 1)
δ < 0.59

Now we compare the two results δ < 0.61 and δ < 0.59, and we can choose any value for
δ that is less than 0.59, say, δ = 0.5. Based on our analysis, we know that this value for
δ will ensure compliance with  = 0.1. Once again, while we have not technically proven
the limit using the (, δ) definition, this example demonstrates a technique for selecting
a value of δ given a value of  > 0.
1
4. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim = 0.
x→∞ x2

Solution
1
For any given  > 0 we need to show that there is some N > 0 so that if x > N then 2 < .
x
1 1 2 1
This can be done using N = √ , since if x > √ then x > which, since  > 0 means that
  
1
< , which is what we need.
x2

2x + 3
5. Use the (, δ) definition of the limit to show that lim = 2.
x→∞ x − 1

Solution
For any given  > 0 we need to show that there is some N > 0 so that if x > N then
2x + 3
− 2 < . Let’s do some algebra to see if we can find a suitable cutoff value, N .
x−1

49
We want
2x + 3
−2 < 
x−1
2x + 3 2(x − 1)
− < 
x−1 x−1
2x + 3 − 2(x − 1)
< 
x−1
1
< 
x−1

Now since we can choose any suitably large cutoff, we can certainly assume that x > 1, so the
inequality can be expressed without absolute value signs, and be inverted as follows
1
< 
x−1
1
x−1 >

1+
x >

Note that this expression confirms the restriction x > 1 that we imposed earlier, so it is safe.
1+
Now let’s prove that this cutoff works. Assume that x > . Then

1+
x >

1
x−1 >

1
<  (since x > 1)
x−1
1
<  (since x > 1)
x−1
2x + 3 − 2(x − 1)
< 
x−1
2x + 3 2(x − 1)
− < 
x−1 x−1
2x + 3
−2 < 
x−1

as required.

50
A Mathematical Induction

One of the most common methods of proof in mathematics is known as “Proof By Mathematical
Induction”, often just referred to by mathematicians as “Induction”. The technique is simple, yet
very powerful, and relies on properties of the natural numbers.

Recall that the set of natural numbers, which we denote as N, is what many people call the counting
numbers – that is, the set {1, 2, 3, ...}. The set is well-ordered, which in a sense means that there is
a clear lowest element (i.e., 1), and that each subsequent element is clearly greater than the element
it precedes. Furthermore, in the set of natural numbers, each element is exactly one greater then
the element it precedes. Mathematically, we can say that if n ∈ N, then its successor is n + 1.

Induction comes in handy when we wish to prove that something is true for all natural numbers.
For example, consider what happens when we add up the first n natural numbers. Specifically, let
Sn = 1 + 2 + 3 + · · · + (n − 2) + (n − 1) + n.
n(n + 1)
It turns out there is a formula for this sum, and that in fact the formula is Sn = . There are
2
a number of ways to prove that this is true, but since it’s a great candidate for proof by induction,
so in a moment we’ll see how that looks.

First, let’s discuss the principle of induction. The way it’s done is first to show that the hypothesis
is true for some starting value of n, usually n = 1. The next step is to assume that the hypothesis
is true for some natural number k, and show that if so, the hypothesis would also be true for the
successor, k + 1. For convenience, we often use P (n) to represent the hypothesis we wish to prove,
so that the three steps of a proof by induction are:

Base Case:
Show that P (1) is true.
Inductive Hypothesis:
Assume that P (k) is true for some k ∈ N.
Inductive Step:
Show that P (k) implies P (k + 1).

The beauty of this method is that by showing that P (k) implies P (k + 1), we know that P (1)
implies P (2). And since P (1) is shown to be true as the first step, this in fact does imply that P (2)
is true, which in turn implies that P (3) is true, which in turn implies P (4) is true, etc. So that
P (n) must be true for all n ∈ N.

Now let’s look at that example.

Let P (n) represent the statement

n(n + 1)
The sum of the first n natural numbers, which we’ll denote as Sn , is equal to .
2
We will show that P (n) is true for all n ∈ N.

Base Case:
Show that P (1) is true.

51
 1(1 + 1)
Substituting 1 into the formula yields = 1, which is certainly the sum of the first 1
2
natural numbers. So P (1) is true.

Inductive Hypothesis:
Assume that P (k) is true for some k ∈ N.
k(k + 1)
Specifically, assume that Sk = .
2
Inductive Step:
Show that P (k) implies P (k + 1).
(k + 1)(k + 2)
P (k + 1) states that Sk+1 = . We’ll prove that this is implied by P (k).
2
First, note that Sk+1 = Sk + (k + 1). Now, according to P (k),

k(k + 1)
Sk =
2
k(k + 1)
⇒ Sk + (k + 1) = + (k + 1)
2
k(k + 1) 2(k + 1)
Sk+1 = +
2 2
k(k + 1) + 2(k + 1)
=
2
(k + 1)(k + 2)
=
2
which is precisely what we needed to show.
Therefore P (k) implies P (k + 1), and so by induction we have shown that the sum of the first
n(n + 1)
n natural numbers is , as we had hoped!
2

52
B Triangular Numbers

Triangular numbers have long been a focus for study, since they have many interesting properties.
One way to think of them (and indeed, this is where they get their name) is as the number of cans
necessary to create a triangular stack. The number of cans required depends on the number of rows
in the stack. When there is only one row, only one can is required, so the first triangular number
is 1. The illustration in Figure 11 shows that the second and third triangular numbers are 3 and 6,
respectively.

Figure 11: a2 = 3 and a3 = 6

It is also fairly easy to see that the nth triangular number is the sum of the first n natural numbers.
So in fact, as we demonstrated in appendix A, the formula for the nth triangular number is
n(n + 1)
an = .
2

53
C Binomial Theorem

For many years it was known that the binomial expansion of (x+y)n could be generalized for n ∈ N,
using the formula
n  
n
X n
(x + y) = xn−r y r
r=0
r
           
n n n n−1 n n−2 2 n n−3 3 n n−1 n n
= x + x y+ x y + x y + ··· + xy + y
0 1 2 3 n−1 n
n(n−1) n−2 2 n(n−1)(n−2) n−3 3
= xn + nxn−1 y + 2·1
x y + 3·2·1
x y + · · · + yn

However Sir Isaac Newton was able to generalize this result to include any real exponent. This did
introduce an infinite series into the mix though!

The resulting revised binomial theorem looks like this:

∞
n
X n(n − 1)(n − 2) · · · (n − r + 1)
(x + y) = xn−r y r
r=0
r(r − 1)(r − 2) · · · (2)(1)
n(n−1) n−2 2 n(n−1)(n−2) n−3 3
n
= x + n1 xn−1 y + 2·1
x y + 3·2·1
x y + ···

The sum is potentially infinite because if n is not restricted to natural numbers then the expression
n(n − 1)(n − 2) · · · need never include a factor of zero. However when n is a natural number, there
will be a factor of zero for all terms where r > n, so that this generalization does not invalidate the
previous result.

54
D The Difference Between “Undefined” and “Indetermi-
nate”

Students often confuse the terms “Undefined” and “Indeterminate”. The reason for this is that
both terms are used when division by zero occurs. However they have very different meanings.
a
First, let’s consider the fraction , where a ∈ R, a 6= 0. Suppose we were able to evaluate this
0
fraction and that the result is some number λ. Then, since division and multiplication are inverse
operations, we have
a
= λ
0
⇒a = 0×λ

But a 6= 0, and there is no defined number that can multiply with zero for a non-zero result. Very
specifically, this means that this strange “number” λ is undefined, and is in fact not a number at
all.
0
Now consider the fraction . Once again, suppose that this evaluates to some number λ. Then,
0
since division and multiplication are inverse operations, we have
0
= λ
0
⇒0 = 0×λ

The thing about this result is that it gives us no information about the value of λ, because any
λ ∈ R would satisfy the equation. We are basically unable to determine the value of λ. Not because
it is undefined, but because it’s value is hidden in the always-true statement 0 = 0 × λ. So since
0
we had defined λ as the fraction , we say that this fraction is indeterminate.
0

55
E Logical “If...Then” Statements

In the study of formal logic, one of the first statements we encounter is the “if...then” statement.
We use it to discuss the truth of statements like

If Adam earns 90% in calculus then Adam earns a calculus credit”.

Symbolically what we would do is let A represent the statement “Adam earns 90% in calculus”
(which we call the hypothesis), and let B represent the statement “Adam earns a calculus credit”
(which we call the conclusion), and write A ⇒ B. The symbol ⇒ means “implies” which is another
way of verbalizing an “if..then” relationship.

In practice, A ⇒ B may or may not be a consistently true statement. Often in math, we have
some given hypothesis, and we wish to show that this means that some stated conclusion is true.
In order to do that, we assume that the hypothesis A is a true statement, and then show that B
is a logical consequence. When this is done, then in symbolic logic, we’d have shown that A ⇒ B.
This is not the same as showing B ⇒ A, although many students mistakenly do just that.

Consider the example of Adam, our star calculus student. If we assume that Adam earns a calculus
credit, we would not be able to say for certain that he earned a grade of 90%. So B ⇒ A would
not be true. However, if we assume that Adam earns 90% in calculus, (and we accept that a grade
of 50% or higher earns a credit), then we can certainly conclude that Adam earns a calculus credit.

What this means is that “if..then” statements are unidirectional. That is A ⇒ B does not mean
the same thing as B ⇒ A. And so we must always be sure when composing formal proofs that we
are assuming A, then proving B.

56
References
[1] Carl B. Boyer. The History of the Calculus and Its Conceptual Development. Dover, New York,
1959.

[2] Carl B. Boyer and Uta C. Merzbach. A History of Mathematics. Wiley, New York, second
edition edition, 1991.

[3] Wikipedia. Zeno of elea — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2011. [Online; accessed 26-January-
2012].

[4] Wikipedia. 100 metres — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2012. [Online; accessed 26-January-
2012].

[5] Wikipedia. Bernard bolzano — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2012. [Online; accessed 26-
February-2012].

[6] Wikipedia. Karl weierstrass — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2012. [Online; accessed 26-
February-2012].

[7] Wikipedia. Square root of 2 — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2012. [Online; accessed 19-
February-2012].

[8] Wikipedia. Tortoise — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2012. [Online; accessed 26-January-
2012].

[9] Wikipedia. Zeno’s paradoxes — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2012. [Online; accessed 29-
January-2012].

57