User:IssaRice/Tao's notation for limits: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Combining these two equalities, we have <math>\lim_{x \to x_0;\, x\in E} f(x) = \lim_{x\to x_0} f|_E(x)</math> as promised. | Combining these two equalities, we have <math>\lim_{x \to x_0;\, x\in E} f(x) = \lim_{x\to x_0} f|_E(x)</math> as promised. | ||
Why might one prefer one notation over the other? I think the strength of Tao's notation is that it works for anonymous functions/expressions. To be able to use the function restriction notation <math>f|_E</math>, we must have named our function beforehand. To give an example, we can write something like <math>\lim_{x\to 0\, x\in (0,\infty)} |x|/x = 1</math>, but this is difficult to write in the other notation; we would have to say something like, "Let <math>f:\mathbf R\setminus \{0\} \to \mathbf R</math> be define by <math>f(x) := |x|/x</math>. Then we have <math>\lim_{x\to 0} f|_{(0,\infty)} = 1</math>." | Why might one prefer one notation over the other? I think the strength of Tao's notation is that it works for anonymous functions/expressions. To be able to use the function restriction notation <math>f|_E</math>, we must have named our function beforehand. To give an example, we can write something like <math>\lim_{x\to 0;\, x\in (0,\infty)} |x|/x = 1</math>, but this is difficult to write in the other notation; we would have to say something like, "Let <math>f:\mathbf R\setminus \{0\} \to \mathbf R</math> be define by <math>f(x) := |x|/x</math>. Then we have <math>\lim_{x\to 0} f|_{(0,\infty)} = 1</math>." |
Revision as of 03:04, 1 December 2018
Tao's notation for a limit is .
Can we write this in a more standard way? basically, if we give one additional definition, we have the very appealing formula .
The additional definition is this: if , then we define . In other words, by default we assume that the limit is taken over the entire domain of the function.
Now, given and some , we have . Thus, .
By exercise 9.4.6,
Combining these two equalities, we have as promised.
Why might one prefer one notation over the other? I think the strength of Tao's notation is that it works for anonymous functions/expressions. To be able to use the function restriction notation , we must have named our function beforehand. To give an example, we can write something like , but this is difficult to write in the other notation; we would have to say something like, "Let be define by . Then we have ."