calculus - $epsilon-delta$ definition for limits involving $infty$

For a general limit the $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of a limit (the formal definition of a limit) states that

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ a} f(x) = L \Leftrightarrow \forall \epsilon > 0 \ (\exists \ \delta > 0 \ : \ (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies |f(x)-L| < \epsilon))$$

However the $\epsilon -\delta$ definition of a limit changes for limits as $x \to +\infty$ and $x \to -\infty$, and it changes again for limits that evaluate to $+\infty$ and $-\infty$

---

1. Limit as $x \to +\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ +\infty} f(x) = L \Leftrightarrow \forall \ \epsilon>0\; (\exists \ \delta : (\;x>\delta\implies |f(x) - L|\leq\epsilon))$$

2. Limit as $x \to -\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ -\infty} f(x) = L \Leftrightarrow \forall \ \epsilon>0\; (\exists \ \delta : (\;x<\delta\implies |f(x) - L|\leq\epsilon))$$

3. Limit evaluating to +$\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ a} f(x) = +\infty \Leftrightarrow \forall M > 0 \ (\exists \ \delta > 0 \ : \ (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies f(x) >M)$$

4. Limit evaluating to -$\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ a} f(x) = -\infty \Leftrightarrow \forall N < 0 \ (\exists \ \delta > 0 \ : \ (0<|x-a|<\delta \implies f(x) < N)$$

---

But why is that so? I understand that if you use the normal $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of a limit in these cases, you get contradictions that pop up like $0 < |x-\infty| < \delta \implies \delta > \infty$, which you cannot do anything further with.

While some of these differences might be subtle, it just seems counter-intuitive to change a formal and general definition.

I know that the fundamental idea behind the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition remains the same throughout all of these examples (that no matter how small we want to make our "error distance" ($\epsilon$) we can always find a "distance to our limit point" ($\delta$) that satisfies the definition of a limit) , but to get to that fundamental idea, the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition has to be subtly modified (and I'm not referring to modifications in notation) for each of these examples.

Or is it just a case that the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition for the general limit I put at the very start of this post is not as general as I thought?

---

Furthermore, how does the $\epsilon - \delta$ definition of a limit change for these cases, (the formal definitions of these don't seem to be covered in any introductory Calculus textbook).

5. Limit as $x \to +\infty$ $= +\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ +\infty} f(x) = +\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

6. Limit as $x \to -\infty$ $= -\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ -\infty} f(x) = -\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

7. Limit as $x \to -\infty$ $= +\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ -\infty} f(x) = +\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

8. Limit as $x \to +\infty$ $= -\infty$

$$\lim_{x \ \to \ +\infty} f(x) = -\infty \Leftrightarrow \ ???$$

Answer

To understand this, you need to think of the intuition behind the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition. We want $\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L$ if we can make $f(x)$ as close to $L$ as we like by making $x$ sufficiently close to $a$. Worded differently, we might say that:

$\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L$ if given any neighborhood $U$ of $L$, there is a neighborhood $V$ of $a$ such that elements of $V$ are mapped by $f$ to elements of $U$ (except possibly $a$ itself).

In this context, a "neighborhood" of a point $p$ should be understood to mean "points sufficiently close to $p$". Let's make that precise by defining what we mean by "close". For $\epsilon>0$ (assumed, but not required, to be very small) define
$$B(x,\epsilon):=\{y\,:\,|x-y|<\epsilon\},$$
the ball of radius $\epsilon$ about $x$. For our purposes, we say $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$ if $U=B(x,\epsilon)$ for some $\epsilon>0$. (The usual definition only requires that $U$ contains such a ball.) Assuming $\epsilon>0$ is very small, this agrees with our intuition of what closeness should mean. Now if we go back to our neighborhood "definition" of a limit, you should be able to think about it for a bit and convince yourself that it is equivalent to the usual definition.

How does this relate to the problem with infinity? Given that infinity is not a real number (and things like distance from infinity do not make sense), we must revise what it means to be "close" to infinity. So for $M>0$ (assumed this time to be very large) define
$$B(+\infty,M):=\{y\,:\,y>M\},\quad B(-\infty,M):=\{y\,:\,y<-M\},$$

the neighborhoods of $\pm\infty$. Hopefully you can see why these make sense as definitions; a number should be close to infinity if it is very large (with the correct sign), so a neighborhood of infinity should contain all sufficiently large numbers.

Now we extend our neighborhood definition of limits to include the case where $a$ or $L$ can be $\pm\infty$. It is a similar exercise to before to verify now that the definition is still equivalent to the old one, only now we have in some sense unified somewhat.