For our introduction to “limits,” on this screen we examine a simple function so we can make the distinction between a function’s *output*-value at a given input-value, and its *limit*-value near that same input-value. We’ll then generalize to develop an initial working definition of “limit” which we’ll make more formal shortly.

To begin our study of limits, let’s consider a single function: $f(x) = \dfrac{x^2 \, – \, 4}{x \, – \, 2},$ graphed here:

Why is the graph a *line?* Notice that we can factor the numerator, and so

\[\frac{x^2\, -\, 4}{x\,-\,2} = \frac{(x+2)\cancel{(x-2)}}{\cancel{(x-2)}} = x+2,\]
which is a line with slope equal to 1 and *y*-intercept equal to 2.

Now, please consider this question:

Looking at the graph, what does $f(2)$ equal?

Before proceeding, ask yourself what thoughts are going through your head.

Many people find themselves feeling torn, or at least can imagine someone feeling torn. On the one hand, you know that $x=2$ is not in the function’s domain since $f(x) = \dfrac{x^2\, -\, 4}{x\,-\,2}$ is undefined for $x=2.$ And indeed, there is a hole in the function’s graph at the point where $x=2$ indicating that the function is undefined there.

On the other hand, a part of you may want to say “$f(2) = 4,$” essentially filling in that hole in your mind. There’s almost a *pull* to say something like, “$f(2)$ would equal four if the function were defined there.” But it’s *not* defined there. Hmmmm.

First, let’s be perfectly clear: $x=2$ is **not** in the domain of *f*, and so

\[f(2) \text{ is undefined.} \quad \cmark\]
That’s the answer to our question above.

And yet there is more information to be had. We can say absolutely correctly, for instance,

“$f(x)$ is close to 4 when *x* is close to 2.”

Or we can make the preceding statement more precise:

“We can get as close to $f(x)$ = 4 as we’d like by being sufficiently close to *x* = 2.”

We capture both of these true mathematical statements by writing

\[\lim_{x \to 2}f(x) = 4\]
which is read as

“The limit of $f(x)$ as *x* approaches 2 equals 4.”

And that is our first mathematically correct “limit statement.”

The limit says *nothing* about the value *at x *= 2.

Notice that this limit statement says The interactive graph below allows you to explore these statements dynamically. You can change the *x*-value of the red dot (initially at *x* = 0.94), and the point’s label automatically displays the $y=f(x)$-value (initially $y = f(0.94) = 2.94$). Move the point toward *x* = 2, and zoom in, and then move the point closer still; move the point toward *x* = 2 from both the left and right sides. We know the results are obvious and may leave you feeling underwhelmed, but in this limits introduction we want (even need) you to gain a physical sense for what it *means* when you see the statement $\displaystyle{ \lim_{x \to 2}f(x) = 4 }$:

“We can get as close to $f(x)$ = 4 as we’d like by getting sufficiently close to *x* = 2.”

Interactive graph of $f(x) = \dfrac{x^2\, -\, 4}{x\,-\,2}$ versus *x*

You may tire of zooming-and-moving-closer. If not, you’ll probably find that even Desmos will only let you zoom in so far. Either way, continue to imagine the zooming-and-moving-closer process in your mind, so that even if we asked you to get to within, say, 0.000000000001 of $f(x) = 4,$ you could move the input *x*-value close enough to *x* = 2 to achieve that goal. (And you could do the same if we asked you to get within $10^{-21}$ of $f(x) = 4,$ or to within $10^{-37},$ or any tiny value we chose.)

This may all seem seem conceptually simple to you — if so, great. (And if not, no worries: we’re going to be developing increased understanding as we continue, so please keep going.) At the same time, it took mathematicians a *tremendous* amount of work and hundreds of years — truly, hundreds of years — to develop the precise formal definition of “limit” that we use today. *We* in turn have work to do to develop a deeper understanding of the simple conceptual ideas we’ve introduced here.

Let’s first state our working definition of “limit” that we can apply to any function:

The limit of the function $f(x)$ as *x* approaches *a*, written

\[\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L\]

is a number *L* (if one exists) such that $f(x)$ is as close to *L* as we want

whenever *x* is sufficiently close to *a*.

For example, for the function we considered at the top of this screen, $f(x) = \dfrac{x^2\, -\, 4}{x\,-\,2},$ we have

\[\lim_{x \to 2} f(x) = 4,\]
which, once again, means, “We can get as close to $f(x)$ = 4 as we’d like by being sufficiently close to *x* = 2.”

With our working definition of limits in mind, let’s consider a few questions to further develop your understanding. The first question helps drive home a key distinction:

This content is available to logged-in users.

The *limit* of a function at a point and the function’s *value* at that point need not be the same value.

As Question 1 illustrates, the limit of a function at a point and the function’s value at that point need not be the same value.Let’s consider a similar question.

This content is available to logged-in users.

As we see in Question 2, the limit of a function at a point can simply equal the function’s value at that point, and often does. None the less, it is *critical* that you recognize that the two quantities $h(3)$ and $\displaystyle{ \lim_{x \to 3}h(x)}$ are distinct. They *may* be equal, or, as we saw in Question 1, they may *not* be, depending on the particular function and the particular input-value of interest.

So far on this screen we’ve used graphs to see easily what a function’s limit is at a given point. You of course won’t always have such a graph available, and there are other ways to provide data about a function. For instance, on exams you should expect questions that present you a table of values intead. The next question illustrates.

This content is available to logged-in users.

Regarding Question #3, you might be thinking that you cannot *know* for sure that the answer is $\displaystyle{\lim_{x \to 3}k(x) = 0.25 }.$ If so, you are correct! We do not have enough information from the table alone to draw a definite conclusion. But when a question says something like, “Based on the values in the table, …”, it means for you to assume that the function is smooth and doesn’t jump around wildly, and instead just happens to have a hole at some input value (here, $x=3$). So in your head craft a mental picture of a curve that has decreasing output values as you pass through input values a little below $x=3$ to a little above $x=3$, and then answer based on that mental picture, essentially filling in the output-value of that hole since that’s the value we could get as close to as we wanted by being sufficiently close to $x=3.$ In case it helps, the figure to the right is a graph of the function from which the table was crafted.

Before we leave this screen, let’s address a few common ideas students have when they’re first learning about limits in Calculus.

This content is available to logged-in users.

This content is available to logged-in users.

We wanted to raise the true/false question right here on this introductory screen because the word “limit” itself has everyday, non-math usage that we should acknowledge, things like “speed limit,” “I have limited free time,” “I’m at my limit.” That is, in everyday usage a “limit” is something that you typically do not (or should not, anyway) exceed. The mathematical meaning is different, as we can see from our current working definition:

The limit of the function $f(x)$ as *x* approaches *a*

is a number *L* (if one exists) such that $f(x)$ is as close to *L* as we want

whenever *x* is sufficiently close to *a*.

From this definition, we can certainly have values above, and below, the limit-value at a particular point. Hence just keep in mind that you should be careful when applying your everyday ideas of “limits” to our new mathematical usage.

Note that while our working definition of “limit” (repeated immediately below) is conceptually appealing and, for many, easy to understand, the phrases “as close to” and “sufficiently close” are vague and hence open to different interpretations by different people. That is, while a fine place to end this introduction to limits, those phrases are not mathematically precise. We’ll start to make them more precise on the next screen.

Do you have questions or comments about anything on this screen? Please head over to the Forum and post them there!

- In our introduction to limits, we have developed a working definition:
The limit of the function $f(x)$ as

*x*approaches*a*, written

\[\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L\]is a number*L*(if one exists) such that $f(x)$ is as close to*L*as we wantwhenever

*x*is sufficiently close to*a*. - Common, everyday ideas of “limit” do
*not*apply to our mathematical notion of “limit.”