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.
Rather than thinking of this as a result per se, I think it's better to think of this as alternative notations. 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 defined by
. Then we have
."
I think usually one would write the above like
. So then one gets to keep anonymous functions, but at the expense of adding more complexity to the notation (one now needs to assign meaning to "
").
One should compare this to the function notation (
) vs Leibniz notation (
) for derivatives.
Notation |
Symbols |
Strengths |
Weaknesses
|
Tao's notation |
 |
Works with anonymous functions. |
Somewhat verbose: the " " part must be written out each time.
|
Function restriction notation |
 |
|
Doesn't work with anonymous functions.
|
Standard notation |
 |
Works with anonymous functions. |
|