Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$



Proof:



Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$



Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$



Is this proof valid?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
    – Sean Roberson
    Nov 17 at 0:10















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$



Proof:



Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$



Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$



Is this proof valid?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
    – Sean Roberson
    Nov 17 at 0:10













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$



Proof:



Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$



Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$



Is this proof valid?










share|cite|improve this question















Let $I$ be an interval in $mathbb{R}$ such that $f:Irightarrowmathbb{R}$ is a function and let $cin I.$
Show that $|f(x)-L|leq K|x-c| implieslim_{xto c} f(x)=L$



Proof:



Suppose w.l.o.g. that $K>0$. Then we have $K|x-c|>0$ since $|x-c|>0$. Now since $xin I$ and $cin I$, $existsepsilon>0$ S.t. $|x-c|<frac{epsilon}{K}$; we can make the distance between $x$ and $c$ as small as we like. Therefore by assumption, $$|f(x)-L|<K|x-c|<K(frac{epsilon}{K})=epsilon$$



Whence, we conclude since $epsilon$ was arbitrary, that $lim_{xto c}f(x)=L$. $blacksquare$



Is this proof valid?







real-analysis limits proof-verification lipschitz-functions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 17 at 0:28









Scientifica

6,04141332




6,04141332










asked Nov 17 at 0:04









coreyman317

681218




681218












  • Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
    – Sean Roberson
    Nov 17 at 0:10


















  • Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
    – Sean Roberson
    Nov 17 at 0:10
















Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10




Realize that $K$ cannot be negative. This is a Lipschitz-type inequality.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 17 at 0:10










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.



You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.



You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.



Here's what you want to prove:



$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:



$$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
    – coreyman317
    Nov 17 at 0:30










  • @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 0:37






  • 1




    @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 0:46












  • Thank you @Scientifica
    – coreyman317
    Nov 17 at 1:01










  • @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 11:59


















up vote
1
down vote













Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
$$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
$$

Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001803%2fshow-that-fx-l-leq-kx-c-implies-lim-x-to-c-fx-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.



    You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.



    You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.



    Here's what you want to prove:



    $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:



    $$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 0:30










    • @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:37






    • 1




      @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:46












    • Thank you @Scientifica
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 1:01










    • @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 11:59















    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.



    You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.



    You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.



    Here's what you want to prove:



    $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:



    $$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 0:30










    • @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:37






    • 1




      @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:46












    • Thank you @Scientifica
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 1:01










    • @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 11:59













    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted






    You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.



    You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.



    You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.



    Here's what you want to prove:



    $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:



    $$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    You have the right ideas, well done! But unfortunately there are some points in the proof that are wrong.



    You say that $K|x-c|>0$ because $|x-c|>0$. But if you take $x=c$, this is no longer true.



    You also say that $existsvarepsilon>0,|x-c|<dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$. This statement is true, but it doesn't mean that $varepsilon$ can be as small as you want unlike what you said. In fact, such an $varepsilon$ has to satisfy $K|x-c|<varepsilon$, so epsilon can't be as small as, say, $frac{1}{2}K|x-c|$. The statement also is of the form $existsvarepsilon$, so $varepsilon$ is not arbitrary, but rather specifically chosen.



    Here's what you want to prove:



    $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    So the natural way to start your proof is: Let $varepsilon>0$. Now that's a truly arbitrary. So what you need to prove is this:



    $$existsdelta>0,forall xin I,|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon.$$



    And here, your choice of $delta=dfrac{varepsilon}{K}$ does the work.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 17 at 0:28









    Scientifica

    6,04141332




    6,04141332












    • I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 0:30










    • @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:37






    • 1




      @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:46












    • Thank you @Scientifica
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 1:01










    • @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 11:59


















    • I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 0:30










    • @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:37






    • 1




      @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 0:46












    • Thank you @Scientifica
      – coreyman317
      Nov 17 at 1:01










    • @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
      – Scientifica
      Nov 17 at 11:59
















    I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
    – coreyman317
    Nov 17 at 0:30




    I thought in the definition of a limit, we take $c$ to be a cluster point which implies $xneq c$?
    – coreyman317
    Nov 17 at 0:30












    @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 0:37




    @coreyman317 You're right, but what you wrote is $cin I$ and $xin I$ so $|x-c|>0$, which is wrong because we can take $x=c$ without any problem.
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 0:37




    1




    1




    @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 0:46






    @coreyman317 Let me correct my comment. You're right in saying that we take $c$ to be a cluster point, which implies that no matter how close you get to $c$, you can take $xneq c$. But you can also pick $x=c$. On the other hand, if you explicitly write "now let $xin Ibackslash{c}$", then indeed $xneq c$. By the way, I just saw that some define limit as: $$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0,forall xin I,0<|x-c|<deltaimplies |f(x)-L|<varepsilon,$$ which makes more sense tbh. If that's the case, then there's no need to assume that $|x-c|>0$.
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 0:46














    Thank you @Scientifica
    – coreyman317
    Nov 17 at 1:01




    Thank you @Scientifica
    – coreyman317
    Nov 17 at 1:01












    @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 11:59




    @coreyman317 It's a pleasure :)
    – Scientifica
    Nov 17 at 11:59










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
    $$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
    $$

    Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
      $$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
      $$

      Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
        $$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
        $$

        Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Yes it is valid once you take into account Sean Roberson's comment that $K>0$. Then for $f:I rightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that for some $c in I$ and some $L in mathbb{R}$, we have that $|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c|$. For any $epsilon > 0$, choose any $x in I$ close enough to $c$ such that $|x - c| < epsilon$. Then
        $$|f(x) - L| leq K |x - c| < Kcdot epsilon.
        $$

        Now let us set $tilde{epsilon} := Kcdot epsilon > 0$, then for any $x$ close enough to $c$ such that $| x - c| < epsilon$, this implies that $|f(x) - L| < tilde{epsilon}$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 17 at 0:30









        BenCWBrown

        3557




        3557






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001803%2fshow-that-fx-l-leq-kx-c-implies-lim-x-to-c-fx-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Mont Emei