CCommons
🔬 Science❓ Question

Limits: I can solve them, but epsilon-delta feels like a magic trick. What am I missing?

Dev Agarwal12th Sample

15 Oct 2026 · 1 min read

Class 12 PCM. For JEE I can do limits fine: standard limits like lim⁡x→0sin⁡xx=1\lim_{x\to0}\frac{\sin x}{x}=1, rationalising, L'Hôpital, the (1+x)1/x(1+x)^{1/x} one. Marks are okay. But last week I opened a university-level book out of curiosity and saw the formal definition:

for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there exists δ>0\delta > 0 such that 0<∣x−a∣<δ  ⟹  ∣f(x)−L∣<ε0 < |x-a| < \delta \implies |f(x)-L| < \varepsilon.

I read it ten times. It feels like lawyer language, or like a magic trick where the answer is hidden in the order of the words. I don't see how it captures "approaches".

What I understand: "as xx gets closer to aa, f(x)f(x) gets closer to LL". That's the school version. What I don't get is who chooses ε\varepsilon, who chooses δ\delta, and why it says "for every".

What I tried: lim⁡x→2(3x+1)=7\lim_{x\to2}(3x+1)=7. I worked backwards and got δ=ε/3\delta = \varepsilon/3, but I don't know if that's a proof or if I just reverse-engineered the answer. Then for lim⁡x→3x2=9\lim_{x\to3}x^2=9 I guessed δ=ε\delta=\varepsilon, plugged in a couple of values and it seemed to work, but I'm not confident.

Is this even useful for JEE? Or is it only for curiosity? And what's the "feeling" I'm supposed to have when I read this definition?

WhatsAppPost on X

10 answers & replies

Sign in to join the conversation.

  • [+]Arjun Nair12thSample· 4d ago

    Think of it as a game with an opponent. The opponent says: "I want f(x)f(x) to be within ε\varepsilon of LL", where ε\varepsilon is any tolerance they like, as tiny as they want. You reply: "Fine. If xx is within δ\delta of aa, I guarantee it." The limit exists if you can always reply, whatever ε\varepsilon they pick. So the opponent chooses ε\varepsilon, you choose δ\delta, and δ\delta will usually depend on ε\varepsilon.

    For 3x+13x+1: ∣f(x)−7∣=∣3x−6∣=3∣x−2∣|f(x)-7| = |3x-6| = 3|x-2|. To make that less than ε\varepsilon you need ∣x−2∣<ε/3|x-2|<\varepsilon/3. So δ=ε/3\delta=\varepsilon/3. And yes, working backwards is exactly how you find δ\delta (scratch work). The proof is the same steps written forwards: "Given ε>0\varepsilon>0, take δ=ε/3\delta=\varepsilon/3. If 0<∣x−2∣<δ0<|x-2|<\delta, then ∣3x+1−7∣=3∣x−2∣<ε|3x+1-7| = 3|x-2| < \varepsilon." Done.

  • [+]Harsh Gupta12thSample· 4d ago

    so basically the limit is just f(a), the value at that point? like for x² at 3 it's 9, because you just put x = 3. why make it so complicated lol

    • [+]Ishaan Bose11thSample· 4d ago

      no wait, that's the thing it's NOT about. take (x2−1)/(x−1)(x^2-1)/(x-1) at x=1x=1. It's 0/00/0, not even defined there. But the limit is 2 because for every other xx it equals x+1x+1. That's why the definition has "0<∣x−a∣0<|x-a|": it deliberately ignores x=ax=a itself. Limit is about what happens near aa, not at aa. For nice functions like x2x^2 it happens to match f(a)f(a) (that's continuity).

  • [+]Meera Patel11thSample· 4d ago

    On your x2x^2 attempt: δ=ε\delta=\varepsilon does not work in general. Test ε=1\varepsilon=1, so δ=1\delta=1. Then x=3.5x=3.5 is allowed, but ∣3.52−9∣=3.25>1|3.5^2-9| = 3.25 > 1. Plugging in a couple of convenient values cannot prove it, only one bad value can disprove it.

    The right way: ∣x2−9∣=∣x−3∣ ∣x+3∣|x^2-9| = |x-3|\,|x+3|. The factor ∣x−3∣|x-3| is the one you control. You need to bound the other factor. Suppose you first agree to take δ≤1\delta\le1. Then 2<x<42<x<4, so ∣x+3∣<7|x+3|<7. Hence ∣x2−9∣<7∣x−3∣|x^2-9| < 7|x-3|. To make that less than ε\varepsilon, you want ∣x−3∣<ε/7|x-3|<\varepsilon/7. So choose δ=min⁡ ⁣(1, ε/7)\delta=\min\!\left(1,\ \varepsilon/7\right). That handles both requirements.

    • [+]Dev Agarwal12thSample· 4d agoAuthor

      ohh. so the min is because I need two conditions at once, one to keep xx near 3 so the other factor stays bounded and one to make the product small. okay that finally looks like something I can do myself. let me try x2x^2 at 5 on my own

  • [+]Rohan Sharma11thSample· 4d ago

    why "for every" ε though? why not just "there exists some ε"? seems like it's making the definition harder than it needs to be

    • [+]Vivek Mishra12thSample· 4d ago

      If it is only for one ε, then many wrong answers also pass. For example take ε = 100. Then a lot of different numbers L are within 100 of f(x), so you cannot say which one is the limit. You need every small ε, even the tiny ones, so only one L can survive. That is what I understood.

  • [+]Riya Singh12thSample· 4d ago

    I'm a poetry person so take this as feeling and not as maths: a limit is a promise you can keep without ever arriving. "Within δ of a" is how close you're willing to stand, and the definition says: however near the answer asks me to be, I can always get there. And you never have to touch the point. It's the closest thing maths has to a love letter.

  • [+]Aman YadavDropperSample· 3d ago

    On usefulness for JEE. Directly, almost none. They give limits to compute, not to prove. Indirectly it helps you understand continuity and differentiability questions, because those are defined with limits. One evening on it is fine. Don't spend a week.

    • [+]Dev Agarwal12thSample· 3d agoAuthor

      got it all. summary for myself: ε = opponent's tolerance, δ = my reply, usually δ depends on ε, limit ignores x = a itself, and for x² near 3 it's min(1, ε/7). thanks all, this was way better than the book

More from Dev Agarwal