PRIMUS

Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate

Studies

ISSN: 1051-1970 (Print) 1935-4053 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upri20

A Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and

Continuity of Functions

Barbara A. Shipman

To cite this article: Barbara A. Shipman (2012) A Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and
Continuity of Functions, PRIMUS, 22:8, 609-633, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2011.630714

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2011.630714

Accepted author version posted online: 09

Nov 2011.
Published online: 09 Nov 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 153

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upri20

Download by: [Universite de Lorraine] Date: 09 April 2017, At: 16:24

PRIMUS, 22(8): 609–633, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1051-1970 print / 1935-4053 online
DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2011.630714

A Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit

and Continuity of Functions

Barbara A. Shipman

Abstract: Differences in definitions of limit and continuity of functions as treated

in courses on calculus and in rigorous undergraduate analysis yield contradictory out-
comes and unexpected language. There are results about limits in calculus that are false
by the definitions of analysis, functions not continuous by one definition and contin-
uous by another, and continuous functions with discontinuities. This paper uncovers
these issues and resolves them in five guided classroom discoveries ideal for students
in a first course in real analysis, an honors calculus course, or a course on transitions to
higher-level mathematical thinking. The conclusion provides definitions consistent with
analysis in a setting for the general student of calculus.

Keywords: Limit, continuity, definitions, analysis, calculus, instructional materials.

1. INTRODUCTION

Definitions on limit and continuity of functions given in standard calculus

courses and in some introductory textbooks on analysis are in conflict with the
definitions used by mathematical analysts and studied in more rigorous courses
in analysis at undergraduate and graduate levels. Underlying these differences
are conditions on the domain, imposed on the functions that the definition con-
siders. In most introductory calculus texts, including traditional, reform, and
geometrically oriented approaches such as [17], [10], and [15], respectively,
and in some elementary introductions to analysis, such as [9] and [18], the def-
inition of the limit of a function f at a point p requires that the domain of f
contain all points in an open neighborhood of p, except perhaps p itself. More
rigorous introductions to analysis, as in the undergraduate texts [1], [3], [8],
and [11], assume only that p be a cluster point of the domain of f , consistent
with graduate-level and research-level treatments. In this paper, reference to

Address correspondence to Barbara A. Shipman, Department of Mathematics, The

University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19408 Arlington, TX 76019-0408, USA. E-mail:
bshipman@uta.edu
610 Shipman

the “definitions of analysis” means the definitions in this rigorous setting of

modern analysis.

1.1. Apparent contradictions in facts and in language

While the differences in these definitions may appear small, they lead to conse-
quences that are profound. For example, in standard calculus courses, students
learn that a function has a limit at a point if and only if it has both a left-hand
limit and a right-hand limit there and these limits are equal. Calculus textbooks
often state this as a theorem, as in [16] and [17]. The textbook [16] emphasizes
in bold-face that limx→a f (x) refers to a two-sided limit, and [17] highlights in
italics and in bold-face that to have a limit at c, a function must be defined on
both sides of c and that “ordinary limits” are called two-sided. √ [17] gives an
example in which the function H : [−2, 2] → R, with H(x) = 4 − x2 , “does
not have ordinary two-sided limits at either −2 or 2.” [10] also emphasizes in
italics that the point at which a limit is taken is approached from both sides.
Using the definitions of mathematical analysis, however, this theorem of calcu-
lus is no longer true. A function can have a limit at a point without having both
a right-hand limit and a left-hand limit there. For example, by the definitions
of analysis, H has a limit at −2 but not a left-hand limit there.
As another example, consider the function β : Q → R where β(x) = x +
4, defined only on the rational numbers. By the definitions in standard calculus
textbooks, β does not have a limit anywhere, but by the definitions of analysis,
β has a limit at every real number.
The reverse situation also occurs, where facts of analysis no longer hold
by the definitions taught in standard calculus courses. In analysis, continuity of
a function f at a non-isolated point p of its domain is defined by the three-fold
requirement that f have a limit at p, that f be defined at p, and that these values
be equal. By this definition, each of the functions H and β defined above is
continuous at every point in its domain. However, if one uses the definitions
from standard calculus courses, this classic characterization of continuity at
a point, which embodies so elegantly the spirit of the concept, is no longer
true. In calculus, β is not continuous anywhere, and the continuity of H at a
point in its domain is judged by three different criteria, depending on where
in this interval the point lies (whether it is a left endpoint, a right endpoint, or
an interior point). In standard calculus courses, H may said to be continuous,
continuous on [−2, 2], or both, depending on the textbook, but, in all of these
cases, the definition of limit in calculus precludes H from being continuous by
the classic criterion of analysis.
The subtlety of having to make different definitions of continuity at an
endpoint of a domain [a, b] in calculus is not only inconvenient but can lead to
occasional slips of language. For example, [15] defines continuity of f at a to
mean limx→a f (x) = f (a) (with the limit being two-sided). The textbook then
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 611

states that a continous function is a function that is continuous

√ at every point in
its domain and that by these definitions, the function x is continuous (where
in fact, by these definitions, it is not).
Furthermore, in a course on calculus, students may hear the commonly
used expression that a continuous function is one whose graph can be drawn
without picking up the pencil. [10] states this, for example, in a discussion of
continuity on an interval, although the statement appears too strong if taken
apart from this context: “A continuous function has a graph which can be
drawn without lifting the pencil from the paper.” In analysis, to say that a
function is continuous without further qualification means that it is continu-
ous at every point of its domain. By this definition, the functions 1/x, |x|/x,
and (x2 − 9)/(x − 3) are continuous; yet, the first two have essential disconti-
nuities at zero and the third has a removable discontinuity at 3, and none of
their graphs can be drawn without picking up the pencil. While reference to
discontinuities of continuous functions may appear to be an odd use of lan-
guage, there is no contradiction here by the definitions of analysis, which are
reasonable and sound. Such clashes in language also appear in other mathe-
matical contexts, as in topology, where a set can be both open and closed or
neither open nor closed.
Another point of dissonance arises in comparing different definitions of
continuity in analysis. By one definition, to say that a function f is continuous
at a point p means that f has both a limit and a value at p and that these numbers
are the same. This definition supposes that p is a cluster point of the domain of
f , as this is the context in which limits are defined. The standard ε - δ definition
of continuity of f at p, however, drops this requirement. This allows functions
on discrete domains, such as N, to be continuous. Thus, there are functions that
are continuous by one definition in analysis but not continuous by another.

1.2. Difficulties for students

Apparent contradictions such as these can be confusing and disturbing to stu-

dents. Before I discussed the limit of a function at a point in teaching an
introductory analysis class, my students confidently recalled that if a function
has a limit at a point, then it has both a left-hand limit and a right-hand limit
there. This was the response that I expected, given the strong emphasis on this
statement in calculus textbooks. I then led the class to see that by the defini-
tions of analysis, a function can have a limit at a point without having both
a left-hand limit and a right-hand limit there. After contrasting this with the
outcome learned in calculus, I reminded the students to be careful to use the
definitions of analysis in this course. Still, 40% incorrectly answered “True” to
the following question on an exam: True or False? If f is a function such that
limx→p f (x) exists, then both limx→p− f (x) and limx→p+ f (x) exist.
The students also readily recalled that functions whose graphs have jumps
or breaks cannot be continuous. This is likely a consequence of the fact
612 Shipman

that in most treatments of continuity in calculus, jumps, breaks, and other

types of non-continuous behaviors are explicitly pointed out as ways in which
continuity fails. With failure of continuity as the focus, and left to the colloquial
connotations of language without a definition of continuous function, students
may (reasonably but mistakenly) believe that a function with any of these dis-
continuities is not continuous. For example, in [10], a graph of 1/x is shown,
with the comment that this function is not defined at zero and is continuous on
any interval that does not contain the origin. Without noting at the same time
that 1/x is continuous on its whole domain, students may incorrectly deduce
from this that 1/x is only continuous when restricted to one side of zero.
In advancing from a standard calculus sequence to a rigorous introduction
to modern analysis, students will wonder why different, apparently conradic-
tory, definitions are used in the two courses. Which definition is the right one?
Can theorems be true in one course and false in another? Setting these issues
straight in students’ minds is important not only in preparing students for grad-
uate work but also in educating those who will build careers in teaching at any
level.

1.3. Resolving the issues – philosophical considerations

This paper addresses these apparent contradictions through five guided class-
room discoveries ideal for students in a first rigorous course in real analysis,
an honors calculus course, or a course on transitions to higher-level mathe-
matical thinking. In resolving these issues, students encounter, perhaps for the
first time, philosophical questions that arise in creating mathematical defini-
tions. In formulating a definition, what is the behavior that one is trying to
capture? For what objects is it relevant to ask whether this behavior is sat-
isfied or not? Once a definition correctly captures the concept in all cases
where the idea is relevant, should one then extend the definition to objects
for which the concept is vacuous or irrelevant? What effect does extending a
definition to a more general context have on mathematical consequences of the
definition?
In the historical development of what is now modern analysis, mathemati-
cians were not initially concerned with specifying the class of functions that
their definitions considered. In the time of Cauchy (1789–1857), the notion of
a function was not yet fully developed or rigorous. Even simple step functions
defined on the real line, such as those that Fourier obtained in his investiga-
tions of infinite series, were not recognized as functions by mathematicians at
the time (see [4], for example, which studies the ideas and definitions of anal-
ysis in their historical setting). Early definitions on limit and continuity sought
to capture the expected behavior of a function without specifying what func-
tions they were considering or what exactly constituted a function. One sees
this, for example, in Cauchy’s frequently quoted description of convergence,
as translated in [5, p. 6]:
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 613

When the values successively attributed to a particular variable indefi-

nitely approach a fixed value in such a way as to end up by differing
from it by as little as we wish, this fixed value is called the limit of all the
other values.

In the rigorous framework of modern analysis, definitions on limit and

continuity must make precise both the behavior expected of a function and
the collection of functions that the definition concerns (even if it be for all
functions). What does it mean to say that one can force f (x) to be as close to
L as one wishes by taking x sufficiently close to, but not equal to p? Must this
work for all x = p sufficiently close to p? How does this condition make sense
if f is defined only on the rational numbers or the integers, or on some arbitrary
subset of the real numbers?
In Guided Discovery 1, students find that strict restrictions on the domain
in defining the limit of a function at a point (as in their calculus courses)
exclude functions with perfectly good limiting behavior on their domains. This
suggests that one can relax the requirement on the domain to include all func-
tions for which the meaning of a limit makes sense. In Guided Discovery
2, students see that the least restrictive condition on the domain that makes
the behavioral condition meaningful involves the idea of a cluster point. The
activity concludes with the observation that when a definition is generalized,
both definitions yield the same outcomes when applied in the original, more
restricted setting. The pedagogy uses metaphors involving residence versus
behavior of birds. In teaching analysis over the years, I have created a variety
of materials and metaphors such as these, many appearing in [13]. The non-
traditional approach to definitions in [13] has helped students in my undergrad-
uate analysis classes better understand the meaning of core concepts [6], [7].
Guided Discoveries 3, 4, and 5 compare definitions on continuity, mostly
in the context of rigorous analysis. In Guided Discovery 3, students confront
the question of whether one should allow functions to be continuous at iso-
lated points of their domains. This opens a discussion of a standard convention
in mathematics concerning extraneous cases. In Guided Discovery 4, students
discover the difference between removable and essential discontinuities, and in
Guided Discovery 5, they define what it means to say that a function is con-
tinuous, without further qualification. The students find, usually with initial
surprise and disbelief, that by the well-constructed definitions of analysis, con-
tinuous functions can have discontinuities and graphs with jumps, breaks, and
vertical asymptotes. This highlights the need to adhere to definitions as they
have been carefully written, and to appreciate their consequences.
The conclusion of the paper offers definitions on limit and continuity, suit-
able for the general student of calculus, that avoid major disagreements with
the definitions and facts of analysis.
As students progress through the activities, I give them time to discuss
each new question with each other, and after a few minutes, I take an informal
614 Shipman

vote on the answer. To improve response rates if needed, I ask the students to
indicate whether they are, say, 70% sure of the answer being considered. I then
give them a few minutes to work out their differences with each other. This
second round of peer-to-peer discussion, where students defend and question
their arguments, is helpful in improving students’ learning, according to a study
of calculus instruction [12]. Throughout the deliberations and voting process, I
remain neutral to the answer, even challenging the class with seemingly good
arguments for the incorrect answer. An open class discussion then resolves the
question.

2. THE LIMIT OF A FUNCTION AT A POINT

2.1. The definition from calculus – domain versus behavior

In mathematics, it is important to discern why a function fails to satisfy a def-

inition: is it because its domain does not satisfy certain stipulations, or is it
because the function does not behave as desired on the domain that it pos-
sesses? In Guided Discovery 1, students study this distinction in the definition
of the limit of a function at a point from standard calculus courses. They find
that stringent requirements on the domain may preclude a function from having
a limit at a particular point even though the function displays correct limiting
behavior near that point, within its domain.
Guided Discovery 1: Domain versus behavior
Part I: Three birds

Definition B: Let B be a species of bird that lives in every continental state of

the United States, except perhaps in Kansas. The expression B is a bread-eater
means that B eats bread as part of its diet whenever bread is available.

(a) This definition contains a residential and a behavioral requirement on a

bird. What are these two requirements?
Solution: The first sentence gives a restriction on where the bird lives and the
second sentence gives a condition on the bird’s behavior.
(b) Is the bird a bread-eater? If not, does it fail the residential or the behavioral
requirement or both?

● The house sparrow

(House sparrows live in every continental state, and they eat bread.)
● The red-tailed hawk
(Red-tailed hawks live in every continental state but do not eat bread.)
● The cardinal
(Cardinals eat bread but do not live in most continental western states.)
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 615

Solution: The house sparrow satisfies both requirements, so it is a bread-eater.

The red-tailed hawk fails the behavioral requirement, and the cardinal fails
the residential requirement; these birds are not bread-eaters, but for (very)
different reasons.
(c) Which bird would you say is closer to being a bread-eater? Why?
● The cardinal
● The red-tailed hawk
Solution: Cardinals do eat bread, so this bird would be a bread-eater if the
requirement on where it must live were lifted; there is no problem with the
cardinal’s behavior. Red-tailed hawks do not eat bread; this bird fails the def-
inition for inherent behavioral reasons. In this sense, the cardinal is closer to
being a bread-eater than the hawk.
(d) Suppose you could define the term “bread-eater” for a bird.
● Would you exclude the cardinal because it does not live in Nevada?
● Would you exclude the red-tailed hawk because it does not eat bread?
Solution: Most people would say that the cardinal is a bread-eater because it
eats bread; whether it lives in Nevada or not does not matter. Since the red-
tailed hawk does not eat bread, one would not call it a bread-eater.

Likewise in mathematics, one must discern why a function fails to satisfy

a definition: is it because it fails conditions imposed on its domain, or is it
because it fails behavioral conditions on the domain that it has?

Part II: Three functions

Recall the following definition from a standard course in calculus:

Definition L1: Let f be a function defined on an interval around p, except

perhaps at p itself. Let L be a real number. The expression f has the limit L at p
means that we can make f (x) remain as close to L as we wish by taking x close
enough to p (but x = p).

(a) This definition contains a requirement on the domain and a requirement on

the behavior of a function. What are these two requirements?
Solution: The first sentence places a requirement on the domain, where
“around p” means that the interval contains points on both sides of p. Once
this eligibility condition is met, one may then check the behavioral condition
in the second sentence.
(b) Sketch a graph of each function. Does it have a limit at 3? If not, is the
problem with the domain, the behavior, or both?

● f : R − {3} → R where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)

616 Shipman

● g : R − {3} → R where g(x) =√1/(x − 3)2

● h : [−3, 3] → R where h(x) = 9 − x2
Solution: f satisfies both parts of the definition with limit 6. g satisfies the con-
dition on the domain but fails the behavioral requirement. h fails the condition
on the domain but behaves as required where it is defined.
(c) Which function would you say is closer to having a limit at 3?
● g : R − {3} → R where g(x) =√1/(x − 3)2
● h : [−3, 3] → R where h(x) = 9 − x2
Solution: g is far from having a limit at 3 regardless of what requirements may
be placed on the domain. h behaves perfectly well where it is defined; this
function would have the limit 0 at 3 if the requirement on the domain were
lifted. Thus, h is closer to having a limit at 3 than g.
(d) Suppose you could define when a function has a limit at 3.
● Would you exclude the well-behaved function h because it is not defined to
the right of 3?
● Would you exclude g because of its ill behavior near 3?
Solution: If a function behaves as required arbitrarily close to 3, within its
domain, mathematical analysts do not exclude it from having a limit at 3. By the
definition of limit in analysis, g does not have a limit at 3 but h does have a
limit there.

Part III: Summarizing the analogy

By Definitions B and L1, which bird is analogous to which function?

● Three birds:
– the cardinal
– the house sparrow
– the red-tailed hawk
● Three functions:
– the function f : R − {3} → R, where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)
– the function g : R − {3} → R, where g(x) =√ 1/(x − 3)2
– the function h : [−3, 3] → R, where h(x) = 9 − x2

Solution: f is like the house sparrow; it satisfies the conditions on domain and
behavior. g is like the red-tailed hawk; it satisfies the restriction on the domain
but not the behavioral condition at 3. h is like the cardinal. While h fails the
condition imposed on the domain, it behaves correctly near 3, within its domain
for p = 3.
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 617

At this point, students are usually √

agreeable to writing a definition of limit
that allows functions such as h(x) = 9 − x2 to have a limit at 3. This is a
strong change in thinking from their former confidence that h cannot have a
limit at 3 because it does not have a right-hand limit there. The students are
now ready for Guided Discovery 2, where they will find the least restrictive
condition on the domain that makes the concept of the limit of a function at a
point interesting and relevant.

2.2. Defining the limit of f at p in analysis

To find the form of Definition L1 used in analysis, Guided Discovery 2 first

motivates the need for some condition on the domain through a metaphor high-
lighting the fact that a request may not make sense if appropriate conditions
are not in place to make it meaningful. The students then arrive at the concept
of a cluster point as the desired condition on the domain and observe that when
one definition is more general than another, both yield the same outcomes in
the more restricted setting.
Guided Discovery 2: Finding the condition on the domain
Part I: Does the request make sense enough to answer?

(a) Can we describe the behavior of resident cardinals

● when they encounter the birdfeeders at Shenandoah National Park? (This
park is in Virginia, and cardinals live there.)
● when they encounter the birdfeeders at Yellowstone National Park? (This
park is in Wyoming, and cardinals do not live there.)
Solution: Since there are no resident cardinals at Yellowstone National
Park, one cannot describe their behavior there. However, cardinals do live
in Shenandoah National Park, so one can describe their behavior at the
birdfeeders there.
(b) Can we describe the behavior of the function as points in its domain, not
equal to 3, approach 3 arbitrarily closely?

● f : R − {3} → R, where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)

● g : R − {3} → R, where g(x) =√ 1/(x − 3)2
● h : [−3, 3] → R, where h(x) = 9 − x2
● α : N → R, where α(x) = −x
Solution: f, g, and h have points in their domains, not equal to 3, as close to
3 as we wish; so one may track and describe their values as x approaches 3.
One cannot track α(x) as x approaches 3 arbitrarily closely since N does not
contain any point not equal to 3 that is within one unit of 3, for example.
618 Shipman

Part II: What condition is needed?

(a) To check the behavior of cardinals when they encounter a birdfeeder,

● there must be cardinals near every side of the birdfeeder.
● there must be cardinals near the birdfeeder.
● it doesn’t matter if there are cardinals there or not.
Solution: To check this, there must be cardinals near the birdfeeder. It is not
necessary that they appear on every side of the feeder, but there do need to be
cardinals somewhere near it.
(b) Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R. To check the behavior of f as
points in its domain, not equal to 3, approach 3 arbitrarily closely,
● there must be points in the domain on both sides of 3.
● D must contain points arbitrarily close to 3 but not equal to 3.
● it doesn’t matter if there are points in the domain close to 3 or not.
Solution: To check this, there must be points in D arbitrarily close to 3 but not
equal to 3. These points need not appear on both sides of 3, but there do need
to be points in D arbitrarily close to 3.
(c) Choose any condition below that is equivalent to the requirement that D
contain points arbitrarily close to p but not equal to p.
● D has a non-empty intersection with every open interval around p.
● Every open interval around p contains a point of D not equal to p.
● Every open interval around p contains infinitely many points of D
Solution: The last two conditions are equivalent to this requirement but the first
is not since it is met by any domain that contains p, such as D = {p}.

We have now found the least restrictive condition on the domain of f :

D → R that makes the question of whether f has a limit at p relevant:

Definition: Let D ⊆ R. A cluster point (or accumulation point, or limit point)

of D is a point p ∈ R such that every open interval around p contains infinitely
many points of D.

The instructor may provide a variety of examples to help students

gain a practical sense of the concept of a cluster point. For example, one
may ask whether 3 is a cluster point of R, Q, N, (0, 3), [0, 3], (0, 6), or
{3 − (1/n) : n ∈ N}, or whether the set {3 − (1/n) : n ∈ N} has any other clus-
ter point besides 3. Replacing the condition on the domain in Definition L1 by
the condition that p be a cluster point of the domain gives the definition of limit
in analysis:
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 619

Definition L2: Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p be a cluster

point of D. Let L be a real number. The expression f has the limit L at p means
that we can make f (x) remain as close to L as we wish by taking x ∈ D close
enough to p (but x = p).

Students will recall the notation limx→p f (x) = L to denote this limit.
To write this definition rigorously, I work with the class to translate it piece by
piece into the standard ε - δ form. Taking time to work this out is well worth
the effort. Section 6.1 in [13] provides an activity to guide the class in rewriting
Definition L2 as follows:

Definition L3: Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p be a cluster

point of D. Let L be a real number. The expression f has the limit L at p means
that for every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that if 0 < |x − p| < δ and x ∈ D,
then |f (x) − L| < ε.

Part III: Answering by the definition of analysis

For each question in (a) and (b), choose one of the following options:

● The question makes sense, and the answer is “yes”.

● The question makes sense, and the answer is “no”.
● The question does not make sense enough to answer (so by default, we may
answer “no”).

(a) Taking averages

● Is the average of any two real numbers a real number?
● Is the average of any two integers an integer?
● Is the average of any two trees a tree?
Solution: The first two questions makes sense, and their answers are “yes” and
“no,” respectively. The third question does not make sense since the concept
of averages does not have meaning on trees.
Likewise, for a function f , the question of whether a limit exists at p may
have meaning or not, depending on whether p is a cluster point of the domain of
f . The questions that follow reinforce this; here the students must again choose
from the same three options as in (a).
(b) Taking limits, by Definition L3:
● Does f : R − {3} → R, where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3), have a limit at 3?
● Does g : R − {3} → R, where g(x) =√ 1/(x − 3)2 , have a limit at 3?
● Does h : [−3, 3] → R, where h(x) = 9 − x2 , have a limit at 3?
● Does α : N → R, where α(x) = −x, have a limit at 3?
620 Shipman

● Does β : Q → R, where β(x) = x + 4, have a limit at 3?

● Taking β as above, does Q : Q − {3} → R have a limit at 3, where Q(x) =
(β(x) − β(3))/(x − 3)?
Solution: For f, h, β, and Q, the question makes sense and the answer is “yes.”
For g, the question makes sense, and the answer is “no.” For α, the question
does not make sense since 3 is not a cluster point of N.
(c) Which of the functions in (b) has a limit at 3 by Definition L1?
Solution: In contrast to the outcome in (b), using Definition L3, none of these
functions has a limit at 3 by Definition L1. g fails for behavioral reasons, while
the other five functions do not satisfy the requirement that L1 places on the
domain.

Part IV: On generalizing a definition

(a) Suppose F is a function that satisfies the requirement on the domain in

Definition L1.
● Does F also satisfy the condition on the domain in Definition L2?
● If F has a limit at p by L1, does it also have a limit at p by L2?
● If F has a limit at p by L2, does it also have a limit at p by L1?

Solution: For such an F, the answer to all of these questions is “yes.”

(b) Based on your answers in (a), what does it mean to say that Definition L2 is
a “generalization” of Definition L1?
Solution: If one restricts attention to the more limited class of functions con-
sidered in L1, then Definitions L1 and L2 give the same outcome on these
functions. Definition L2 applies to a larger class of functions than L1 (it
includes all functions f : D → R with D ⊆ R for which the concept of a limit
at p makes sense).

One notices further that changing a definition changes the hypothesis of

any implication that requires that the definition be satisfied. The results from
calculus are true according to the definitions used in calculus. However, with
the more encompassing definitions of analysis, the hypotheses of some major
results of calculus change in such a way that the conclusion no longer fol-
lows. Students will see, for example, that by the definitions in standard calculus
courses, a function has a limit at p if and only if it has both a left-hand
limit and a right-hand limit at p. However, with Definition L3 of a limit in
analysis, this conclusion no longer follows.
√ Students now agree, for example,
that in analysis, the function h(x) = 9 − x2 does (and should) have a limit
at 3.
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 621

2.3. On limits of difference quotients

Students will recall from calculus that the derivative of a function F at p is the
limit of the difference quotient Q(x) = (F(x) − F(p))/(x − p) at p. (For exam-
ple, the limit at 3 of f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3) in Guided Discoveries 1 and 2 is
the derivative of x2 at 3.) Since the derivative is itself a limit, any restriction
on the domain in defining a limit applies to the domain of the difference quo-
tient in defining the derivative. Thus, a typical course in calculus can define the
derivative of F only at a point p where F is defined on an open interval around
p, except possibly at p.
It is interesting to note that most undergraduate analysis textbooks that
use Definition L3 for a limit place additional restrictions on the domain in
defining the derivative, even when the limit of the difference quotient may exist
by Definition L3 without the additional restriction. For example, [1], [3], and
[11] consider the limit at a cluster point of the domain but define the derivative
only at points in an (arbitrary) interval contained in the domain. Thus, taking
β : Q → R, where β(x) = x + 4 and using the definitions in [1], [3], and [11],
the difference quotient (β(x) − β(3))/(x − 3) has a limit at 3, but β does not
have a derivative at 3 (see Part III of Guided Discovery 2).
Of the references cited in this paper, only [8] defines both the limit and
the derivative at a cluster point of the domain. [3] notes that the derivative of
a function at p may be defined on more general domains since p need only be
in the domain and a cluster point of the domain. However, [3] then states that
because the significance of derivatives is “most naturally apparent for functions
defined on intervals,” its definition of derivative restricts attention to functions
on intervals.
Below are three functions and two questions about the functions.
An instructive exercise for the students is to answer the two questions about
each function, first using the definitions from their calculus textbook and then
using the definitions in their analysis textbook.
The three functions:

● S : R → R, where S(x) = x2
● H : [3, ∞) → R, where H(x) = x
● β : Q → R, where β(x) = x + 4

The two questions: Taking F to be S, H, and β in turn,

● Does the difference quotient Q(x) = (F(x) − F(3))/(x − 3) have a limit at 3?

● Does F have a derivative at 3?

In answering these questions, students will notice that the domain of the
difference quotient is the domain of F with 3 removed, where the removal of 3
from the domain has no influence on the existence or value of a limit there. This
622 Shipman

activity will likely have surprising outcomes; it makes a good preparation for a
class discussion and a good topic for a mathematical essay or group homework
project.
The answers to these questions are not the same by all textbooks that may
be used in undergraduate analysis courses. For example, in [1], [2], [3], [8],
and [11], the difference quotient has a limit at 3 for all three functions, but it
is only in [8] that all three functions have derivatives at 3; by the definitions in
[1], [3], and [11], only S and H have derivatives at 3, and in [2], only S has a
derivative at 3. By [9], the difference quotient has a limit at 3 for S and H (but
not β) while only S has a derivative at 3, and by the definitions in [18], neither
the limit of the difference quotient nor the derivative exists for H and β, while
both exist for S.
In the author’s view, since both the limit of the difference quotient and the
derivative make sense conceptually for all three functions, the definitions of
limit and derivative in analysis should allow both of these to exist for all three
functions, as in [8]. Accordingly, in defining a derivative of f at p in an analysis
course, my preference is to place the least restrictive condition on the domain
(that p be an element of the domain and a cluster point of the domain) so that a
derivative may be spoken of in all cases where it is meaningful and interesting.

2.4. Additional topics on limits

Before studying continuity, I discuss further topics on limits, including the

sequential characterization of a limit, algebraic properties of limits, the
Squeeze Theorem, and definitions of limx→p− f (x), limx→p+ f (x), limx→∞ f (x),
and limx→−∞ f (x). Students apply these ideas on step functions, functions
with vertical and horizontal asymptotes, functions defined differently on the
rationals and irrationals, functions defined only on a bounded open or closed
interval, variations of sin (1/x) and x sin (1/x) that may be extended to zero in
different ways, and other functions like those they will encounter in Guided
Discovery 4 of Section 3.2.

3. CONTINUITY

Once the concept of a limit of f at p has been defined, as independent of the

behavior of f at p itself, the question of continuity can be appreciated. How
does the behavior of f arbitrarily close to p but not equal to p compare with
its behavior at p? Does it make sense to say that a function defined only on N
is continuous anywhere? How can a function fail to be continuous at a given
point? Are some of these failures more serious than others? Also, what does
it mean to say that a function is continuous? What do graphs of continuous
functions look like? In Guided Discoveries 3, 4, and 5, students answer these
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 623

questions and more. Henceforth, the limit of a function at a point is understood

as in Definition L3 of analysis.

3.1. Continuity at a point – three definitions

In Guided Discovery 3, the students start with a definition of continuity at a

point that is linguistically simple and highlights the intuitive idea of continuity.
They then create an equivalent ε - δ definition of continuity by modifying the
definition of a limit. A subtle but important difference between the resulting
definition and the standard ε - δ definition of continuity in analysis highlights
a convention in mathematics in which extraneous cases are allowed to satisfy a
definition by default.

Guided Discovery 3: Different expressions of continuity at p

Part I: Continuous at 3 by which definition?

Definition C1: Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p be a cluster

point of D. The expression f is continuous at p means that f has a limit at p, f
is defined at p, and limx→p f (x) = f (p).

(a) Which of the functions below is continuous at 3 by Definition C1, using

Definition L3 of limit, from analysis?

● f : R − {3} → R where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)

● f̂ : R → R where f̂ (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3) if x = 3 and f̂ (3) = 6
● g̃ : R → R where g̃(x) = 1/(x −√3) if x = 3 and g̃(3) = 0
2

● h : [−3, 3] → R where h(x) = 9 − x2

Solution: f̂ and h are continuous at 3, but f and g̃ are not since f is not defined
at 3 and g̃ does not have a limit at 3.
(b) Which of the functions in (a) is continuous at 3 by Definition C1, using
Definition L1 of a limit, from calculus?
Solution: Only f̂ is continuous at 3 by these definitions; h is not.
The students may now check what their calculus books say about continuity
at endpoints of a domain. According to the book’s definitions, is h continuous
at every point of its domain? How does this outcome compare with the con-
clusions in (a) and (b)? Students will find that the definitions in calculus yield
answers to these questions that differ from the answers in analysis. A careful
study of the differences, possibly considering other functions as well, makes a
good topic for a mathematical essay, a team project, or student presentations.
624 Shipman

(c) To find another expression of continuity that is equivalent to Definition C1,

recall Definition L3:
Definition L3: Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p be a cluster
point of D. Let L be a real number. The expression f has the limit L at p means
that for every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that if 0 < |x − p| < δ and x ∈
D, then |f (x) − L| < ε.
Complete each statement below to turn Definition L3 into a definition of
continuity of f at p that is equivalent to Definition C1:
● To ensure that it is relevant to ask that f have a limit at p, we retain the
requirement that . . .
● To ensure that f be defined at p, we add the requirement that . . .
● We delete the sentence “Let L be a real number” because . . .
● Since x may now equal p, we change “0 < |x − p| < δ” to . . .
● Since the limit must be f (p), we change “|f (x) − L| < ε” to . . .
Solution: These changes yield Definition C2, equivalent to Definition C1 but
quite different in language.
Definition C2: Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p be a cluster
point of D with p ∈ D. The expression f is continuous at p means that for
every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that if |x − p| < δ and x ∈ D, then |f (x) −
f (p)| < ε.
(d) Now consider a slightly different form of Definition C2:
Definition C3: Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p ∈ D. The
expression f is continuous at p means that for every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0
such that if |x − p| < δ and x ∈ D, then |f (x) − f (p)| < ε.
What is different in Definition C3 from Definition C2? Are any of the functions
below continuous at 3 by one of Definitions C2 and C3 but not by the other?
● f : R − {3} → R where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)
● g : R − {3} → R where g(x) = 1/(x − 3)2
● α : N → R where α(x) = −x

Solution: Definition C2 requires that p be a cluster point of the domain

of f, but Definition C3 does not. Neither f nor g is continuous at 3 by
either definition. However, α is continuous at 3 by Definition C3 but not
by C2.
Students usually do not realize at first that α is continuous at 3 by
Definition C3. Convincing them of this involves drawing a graph of the func-
tion and illustrating on the graph that for any ε > 0, taking δ = 1/2, for
example, yields an interval around 3 that contains only one point of the domain,
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 625

3. On checking this against Definition C3, students then realize that α is con-
tinuous at 3 by this definition; some have used the word “vacuous” to describe
the situation.
A philosophical question about definitions now arises. In making a defini-
tion, about the behavior of functions, for example, should one allow functions
to satisfy the definition that may be described as “vacuous,” “irrelevant,” or
“extraneous” to the concept being defined? While both choices in answering
this preserve the meaning of the concept in all cases where it is interesting,
the convention among mathematicians is to write definitions to include the
extraneous cases as well.
Part II illustrates the difference in perspective between the two choices.
The questions in (a) and (b) are directed to the students, allowing them to con-
sider which perspective they might prefer, before explaining which choice is
the convention.
Part II: Should we allow extraneous cases?

(a) Suppose we are studying mathematical structure in wing patterns of

insects. We have butterflies, bees, wasps, and beetles. Some wingless ants
want to join the group. Which choice would you make?

1. These ants do not have wings. They will not add anything interesting to the
study so we will exclude them.
2. Allowing the ants into the study does not cause any trouble. It is not
necessary to exclude them so we will let them in.

Solution: The project will have the same outcome in both cases on the insects
for which it is relevant. The point here is to recognize the difference and to
think about which choice one might make and why.
(b) In defining continuity of a function at a point, suppose someone wants to
allow functions to satisfy the definition for which the meaning of continuity
is irrelevant. Which choice would you make?

1. We do not want to admit functions for which the concept is meaningless.

We will therefore make sure the definition excludes them.
2. Since irrelevant functions don’t cause any trouble, we do not need to
exclude them. We will allow them to satisfy the definition.
Solution: The first choice is the view of Definitions C1 and C2, and the second
is the view of Definition C3. Students can discuss among each other which of
Definitions C2 and C3 they might choose and why.
In general, my students have initially preferred the first choice, as in
Definition C2, but there is always argument for both sides. This provides
a good opportunity for students to heighten their awareness of a subtle but
626 Shipman

important point in creating mathematical definitions. The activity concludes

in revealing the conventional choice that mathematicians take.
(c) The established choice among mathematical analysts is to adopt Definition
C3 instead of Definition C2. This reflects a general convention among
mathematicians to formulate definitions to include extraneous cases. What
may be good reasons for this?

Conclusion: Having been alerted to this practice in mathematics, students can

begin to study and appreciate its advantages. They will see, for example, that
admitting extraneous cases broadens the set of objects to which certain theo-
rems apply (even if in an uninteresting way). More crucially, allowing vacuous
cases to satisfy a definition when there is “nothing to check” prevents the prob-
lem of having to make explicit exclusions for special cases in many important
theorems. For example, Sard’s Theorem states that the set of regular values of
a smooth map has measure zero. This would not be true if values not in the
image of the map were not (vacuously) regular; that is, if there are no points in
the pre-image at which to check the regularity condition, then the condition is
satisfied.

3.2. Removable and essential discontinuity – two definitions

Guided Discovery 4 uses Definition C1 to extract four reasons why a function

may fail to be continuous at a point. Some of these failures can be repaired
by changing the function only at 3, while others cannot. This leads to the
standard definitions of removable and essential discontinuities. Among the
functions in Part I(a), some are defined at 3 while others are not, and only some
have a limit at 3. Those without a limit at may have a jump, an asymptote,
non-limiting oscillatory behavior, or different formulas on the rationals and
irrationals. Instructors may add to or modify this list or have students construct
their own examples.

Guided Discovery 4: Defining types of discontinuity

Part I: How can continuity at a point fail?

(a) Sketch a graph of each function, showing the behavior near 3.

● f : R − {3} → R where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)
● f̃ : R → R where f̃ (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3) if x = 3 and f̃ (3) = 0
● g : R − {3} → R where g(x) = 1/(x − 3)2
● g̃ : R → R where g̃(x) = 1/(x −√3) if x = 3 and g̃(3) = 0
2

● h : [−3, 3] → R where h(x) = 9 − x2

● J : R − {3} → R where J(x) = −1 if x < 3 and J(x) = 1 if x > 3
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 627

● J̃ : R → R where J̃(x) = −1 if x < 3 and J̃(x) = 1 if x ≥ 3

● I : R → R where I(x) = −1 if x ∈ Q and I(x) = 1 if x ∈ R − Q
● k : R − {3} → R where k(x) = sin(1/(x − 3))
● T : R − {3} → R where T(x) = (x − 3) sin(1/(x − 3))
● T̃ : R → R where T̃(x) = (x − 3) sin(1/(x − 3)) if x = 3 and T̃(3) = 0
● α : N → R where α(x) = −x
● β : Q → R where β(x) = x − 1
● γ : R − Q → R where γ (x) = x − 1
Solution: Students should sketch large, clear graphs of each function that show,
with reasonable accuracy, the behavior near 3. The graphs should be visible to
the whole class as they consider the questions below.
(b) Which of the functions in (a) is continuous at 3 by Definition C1? If the
function is not continuous at 3, for which reason does it fail?
● 3 is not a cluster point of the domain.
● 3 is a cluster point of the domain, but there is not a limit at 3.
● The function has a limit at 3 but is not defined at 3.
● The function has a limit and a value at 3, but they are not equal.

Solution: Only α fails for the first reason. g, g̃, J, J̃, I, and k fail for the second
reason, and f, T and γ fail for the third reason. f̃ fails for the fourth reason,
and h, T̃, and β are continuous at 3.
(c) Is the language of Definition C2 as helpful as C1 in distinguishing why a
function may fail to be continuous at a point?
Solution: C1 lists the three criteria for continuity explicitly, making it easy to
determine distinct reasons for why continuity at p may fail. The language of
C2 is not as helpful here.

Part II: How simple is it to repair the breach of continuity?

(a) Let f : D → R be a function with D ⊆ R, and let p be a cluster point of D

(so that limits are relevant). Which of the following failures of continuity
at p can be repaired by changing f only at p?
● f does not have a limit at p.
● f has a limit at p but is not defined at p.
● f has a limit and is defined at p, but these values are not equal.

Solution: Only the last two. If f has a limit at p, then (re)- defining f at p to be
equal to this limit will make the function continuous at p. If f does not have a
limit at p, then changing f only at p cannot create a limit there since the status
of f at p has nothing to do with a limit at p. In this case, one would need to
change f at infinitely many points to make the repair.
628 Shipman

(b) Suppose f is not continuous at a cluster point p of its domain. In which

case(s) would you call the failure of continuity removable? In which
case(s) would you call it essential?
● f can be made continuous at p by changing f only at p.
● f cannot be made continuous at p by changing f only at p.
● f has a limit at p.
● f does not have a limit at p.

Solution: At any cluster point of the domain, the first condition is equivalent
to the third and the second is equivalent to the fourth. The first situation is a
minor problem that is easy to fix; we call this a removable discontinuity. The
second situation is a serious breach of continuity; we call this type essential.
This is summarized in Definitions D1 and D2.
Definition D1: Let p be a cluster point of D, and suppose f : D → R is not
continuous at p. To say that f has a removable discontinuity at p means that
the function can be made continuous at p by changing it only at p. Otherwise,
f is said to have an essential discontinuity at p.
Definition D2: Let p be a cluster point of D, and suppose f : D → R is not
continuous at p. f is said to have a removable discontinuity at p in the case that
f has a limit at p. f is said to have an essential discontinuity at p in the case
that f does not have a limit at p.
(c) Among the functions in Part I(a), which have removable discontinuities at
3? Which have essential discontinuities at 3?
Solution: f , f̃ , T, and γ have removable discontinuities at 3, and g, g̃, J, J̃, I,
and k have essential discontinuities at 3. For α, these terms are not defined
since 3 is not a cluster point of the domain.

3.3. Continuous functions

Mathematicians often speak of functions as continuous without specifying a

point or a domain, with the implied meaning that a continuous function is one
that is continuous at every point where it is defined. Many textbooks, including
[8], [11], [15], and [17] state this definition of “continuous” explicitly. Others,
such as [3], [16], and [18], always specify the point or set on which conti-
nuity occurs, and some, such as [1] and [9], define continuity at a point and
then refer to continuous functions without defining explicitly what this means.
In whatever way students encounter the expression, functions will continue to
be spoken of as continuous without further qualification. It is therefore imper-
ative that students correctly understand this language and its consequences.
They will find, for example, that by correct and standard definitions of analysis,
continuous functions can have discontinuities.
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 629

Guided Discovery 5: Language and pictures of continuity

(a) What does it mean to say that a function is continuous?

● The function is continuous at every point in its domain.
● The function must be defined on an open interval and be continuous at every
point in the interval.
● The function must be defined on R and be continuous at every real number.

Solution: Functions with a variety of different domains can be said to be con-

tinuous. (Otherwise, there would not be many continuous functions.) To check
for continuity, one need only consider points in the domain.
Definition C: To say that a function f is continuous means that f is continuous
at every point in its doman. This has the same meaning as f is continuous on
its domain.
(b) Sketch a graph of each function below. By Definition C, which of them is
continuous?
● f : R − {3} → R where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3)
● g : R − {3} → R where g(x) =√ 1/(x − 3)2
● h : [−3, 3] → R where h(x) = 9 − x2
● J : R − {3} → R where J(x) = −1 if x < 3 and J(x) = 1 if x > 3
● k : R − {3} → R where k(x) = sin(1/(x − 3))
● ln : (0, ∞) → R where ln is the natural logarithm
● T : R − {3} → R where T(x) = (x − 3) sin(1/(x − 3))
● γ : R − Q → R where β(x) = x − 1

Solution: All of these functions are continuous (no matter which of Definitions
C1, C2, and C3 is used for continuity at a point).
Before carefully considering definitions on continuity, students in a first
undergraduate course in analysis have almost unanimously believed that none
of these functions, except for ln, and possibly h, is continuous. The next three
questions investigate this further.
(c) Does any of the eight continuous functions in (b) have a removable or
essential discontinuity by Definition D2?
Solution: f and T have removable discontinuities at 3; g, J, and k have essen-
tial discontinuities at 3; ln has an essential discontinuity at zero, and γ has a
removable discontinuity at every rational number.
(d) Consider α : N → R where α(x) = −x. By Definitions C and C3, is α
continuous?
Solution: Yes; by these definitions, α is continuous.
630 Shipman

(e) Is there anything strange about the conclusions that you have made in this
activity? Is there anything you would change in the definitions?
Solution: It may seem strange that continuous functions can have discon-
tinuities and that graphs of continuous functions can have jumps, holes,
asymptotes, or isolated points. These conclusions, however, are correct and
sound by the well-crafted definitions of analysis.

4. OUTLOOK

In view of the conflicts that arise among definitions on limit and continuity
as treated in calculus courses and in analysis, one may wonder why textbooks
on calculus consistently require that the domain of a function contain an open
interval around a point in defining limit and continuity there. The standard
approach is that since the concept of a cluster point is reasonably considered
too complex for the general student of calculus, one may start with functions
defined on intervals and then, in future courses, extend the ideas to functions
on more general domains. This is a good plan, but it should be handled in a way
that avoids images and outcomes that conflict starkly with those of analysis.

4.1. New definitions for calculus

The definitions below provide an approach consistent with analysis in a setting

simple enough for students of calculus. Prior to discussing Definition L4, the
students will have thought about different types of intervals, including exam-
ples that are open, closed, half-open, or infinite, so that they will see the variety
of intervals that the definition includes. In particular, an endpoint of an interval
I may be in I (a closed endpoint) or not in I (an open endpoint).

Definition L4: Let I be an interval, and let p be a number that is in I or an

endpoint of I. Let f be a function defined on I, except possibly at p, and let L
be a real number. The expression f has the limit L at p means that we can make
f (x) remain as close to L as we wish by taking x in I close enough to p (but
x = p).

The instructor may provide a broad array of examples that illustrate

Definition L4, such as those below, together with graphs of the functions near
p. In addition, it is helpful to include examples where Definition L4 does not
hold.

● f : R − {3} → R, where f (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3), has limit 6 at 3

● f̃ : R → R with f̃ (x) = (x2 − 9)/(x − 3) if x = 3 and f̃ (3) = 0 has limit 6 at
3
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 631

● F : R → R, where F(x) = x +√ 3, has limit 6 at 3

● H : [−2, 2] → R with H(x) = √4 − x2 has limit 0 at −2 and at 2
● H̃ : (−2, 2) → R with H̃(x) = 4 − x2 has limit 0 at −2 and at 2
√
● : [0, ∞) → R has limit 0 at 0
● t : R − {0} → R, where t(x) = x sin (1/x), has limit 0 at 0

One now defines continuity of a function at a point by the classic three-fold

criterion of analysis, stated for functions defined on an arbitrary interval I that
contains p.

Definition C4: Let f be a function defined on an interval I containing p, so that

f is defined at p. To say that f is continuous at p means that f has a limit at p
and limx→p f (x) = f (p).

An explicit definition of a continuous function accompanies this definition.

Definition C: To say that a function f is continuous means that f is continuous

at every point in its doman.
Students can check that in the list above, all of the functions except for f̃ are
continuous, as are the functions 1/x and |x|/x, defined on R − {0}.
Appropriate definitions of left-hand and right-hand limits may now be
written in this framework, as well as definitions of removable and essential
discontinuities of functions defined on arbitrary intervals.

4.2. Consistency from calculus to analysis

The definitions in Section 4.1 resolve the major problems highlighted in the
Introduction. The belief that a function should have a limit at a point only if it
has equal left-hand and right-hand limits there (which is so difficult to amend
when students enter a course in analysis) is no longer true in this framework.
With the definitions of Section 4.1, students will see in calculus that familiar
√ √
functions such as x and 4 − x2 have limits at every point of their domains,
consistent with analysis.
Furthermore, continuity of a function at a point is now defined by the
same
√ simple requirement used in analysis. In this framework, functions such
as 4 − x2 are continuous, not by three different criteria to judge points at dif-
ferent locations in the domain (as in traditional calculus textbooks), but for the
same reason that they are continuous in analysis.
With definitions L4, C4, and C, students will also see, in their calculus
courses, the variety of graphs that continuous functions can have, which may
include breaks, jumps, and other discontinuities at points not in the domain.
Within this broader picture of continuity, one may then discuss images and
consequences of continuity for functions restricted to intervals. Students will
632 Shipman

see that on an interval, continuity looks as it intuitively should by a colloquial

understanding of the term, and that this leads to interesting and useful results,
such as the Intermediate Value Theorem.
Definition L4 still excludes functions such as β : Q → R, where β is
a restriction of a continuous function on R, from having a limit or being
continuous anywhere. This, however, is easily modified with the introduc-
tion of cluster points in analysis in a way compatible with the definitions of
Section 4.1.
In mathematics, one makes reasonable definitions and considers their con-
sequences. In the study of limits and continuity, much as in the study of
cardinality [14], one may find unexpected language and outcomes that follow
from perfectly sound definitions. This is one of the beautiful features of math-
ematics, and it is indeed an art to create good definitions, adhere to them, and
appreciate what one learns from them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science

Foundation under Grant No. 0837810.

REFERENCES

1. Abbott, S. 2001. Understanding Analysis. New York: Springer Science and

Business Media, Inc.
2. Apostol, S. 1974. Mathematical Analysis, second edition. Addison-
Wesley.
3. Bartle, R. G., and D. R. Sherbert. 2011. Introduction to Real Analysis,
fourth edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
4. Bressoud, D. M. 2007. A Radical Approach to Real Analysis, second
edition. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.
5. Bradley, R. E., and C. E. Sandifer, 2009. Cauchy’s Cours d’analyse: An
Annotated Translation. New York: Springer Science and Business Media,
Inc.
6. Dawkins, P. 2009. Concrete metaphors in the undergraduate real analysis
classroom. In S. L., Swars, Stinson, D.W., and Lemons-Smith, S. (Eds),
Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter
of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Volume 5, pp. 819–826. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
7. Dawkins, P. 2009. Non-traditional socio-mathematical norms in under-
graduate real analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. Available through the library of
the University of Texas at Arlington.
8. Gaughan, E. D. 1998. Introduction to Analysis, fifth edition. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Comparative Study of Definitions on Limit and Continuity 633

9. Howland, J. S. 2010. Basic Real Analysis. Sudbury, MA: Jones and

Bartlett.
10. Hughes-Hallett, D., A. Gleason, W. G. McCallum 2005. Calculus, Single
and Multivariable, fourth edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
11. Lay, S. R. 2005. Analysis with an Introduction to Proof , fourth edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12. Miller, R., E. Santana-Vega, and M. Terrell. 2006. Can good questions and
peer discussion improve calculus instruction? PRIMUS. 16(3): 193–203.
13. Shipman, B. A. 2009. Active learning materials for critical thinking in a
first course in real analysis. http://www.uta.edu/faculty/shipman/analysis.
Accessed 4 December 2012.
14. Shipman, B. A. 2012. Determining definitions for comparing cardinalities.
PRIMUS, 22(3): 239–254.
15. Simmons. G. F. 1996. Calculus with Analytic Geometry, second edition,
McGraw-Hill.
16. Tan, S. T. 2011. Calculus Early Trancendentals: Custom Edition for
University of Texas Arlington. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
17. Thomas, G. B., as revised by Weir, M. D., J. Hass, and F. R. Giordano.
2008. Thomas’ Calculus: Early Transcendentals – Media Upgrade, 11th
edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
18. Wade, W. R. 2010. An Introduction to Analysis, fourth edition. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Barbara A. Shipman completed her graduate studies in mathematics at the

University of Arizona, where she initiated the department’s student-led gradu-
ate seminar. She has received numerous teaching awards, and national funding
for her creative work in helping students discover, comprehend, and appreciate
the intricate ideas of analysis. Distilling the essence of mathematical concepts
and casting them into sound definitions and enlightening expositions is a cor-
nerstone of her work, both in the classroom and in her research at the interface
of differential geometry and dynamical systems.