The formal definition of limit at infinity usually starts with a statement requiring an open interval. An example from OSU is as follows:
Limit At [Negative] Infinity: Let f be a function defined on some open interval (a,∞) [(−∞,a)]. Then we say the limit of f(x) as x approaches [negative] infinity is L, and we write limx→[−]∞f(x)=L if for every number ϵ, there is a corresponding number N such that |f(x)−L|<ϵ whenever x>N[x<N].
But, I think it is also valid when the interval is half-open as in the following: Let f be a function defined on some right-open interval [a,∞) [left-open interval (−∞,a]]. Then we say the limit of f(x) as x approaches [negative] infinity is L, and we write limx→[−]∞f(x)=L if for every number ϵ, there is a corresponding number N such that |f(x)−L|<ϵ whenever x≥N[x≤N].
So, why the formal definition of limit at infinity does not start with a statement requiring a half-open interval, which is more general?
Is it because people want to match it with the formal definition of limit? I understand that the formal definition of one-sided limit requires an open interval because that is necessary to define a limit at a point a. But, such requirement does not exist for limit at infinity, and therefore, why the more general version of half-open interval is not used in the formal definition of limit at infinity?
Answer
There is not really a difference between both approaches: If f is defined on the open interval (−∞,a), then we may as well consider the restriction to the closed interval (−∞,a−1] and similarly vice versa. The reason that open interval may be preferred is that the limit requires f to be defined on a topological neighbourhood of ∞. A neighbourhood of ∞ is a set that contains an open set containing ∞ and the basic open sets are open intervals. So the the following definition might be considered "best", but I'm afraid it is way less intuitive for the learner:
Limit At Infinity: Let f:A→R be a function where A is a punctured neighbourhood of ∞ in the two-point compactification of R. Then we say ...
No comments:
Post a Comment