One Sided Limits

The left and the right may disagree.

From the left and from the right

Take f(x) = −1 for x < 0 and f(x) = 1 for x ≥ 0. At x = −0.1, −0.01 and −0.001 the output is −1 every time. At x = 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 it is 1 every time.

A one-sided limit uses inputs from one side only. x → 0⁻ means x approaches 0 from below, through negative numbers, and x → 0⁺ means from above. Here the limit of f(x) as x → 0⁻ is −1, the left-hand limit, and the limit as x → 0⁺ is 1, the right-hand limit.

xy

f(x) = −1 for x < 0 and 1 for x ≥ 0. Coming in from the left the graph runs along −1 to a hollow circle; from the right it runs along 1 to the filled point at (0, 1), which is f(0).

Two answers mean no limit

The limit of f(x) as x → 0 would have to be one number that the outputs approach from both sides. The outputs on the left stay at −1 and the outputs on the right stay at 1, and no single number is near both. So the limit as x → 0 does not exist.

The average, 0, is not the limit: f(x) is never near 0 for any input near 0. Nor is f(0) = 1: the value at the point never decides a limit, and here the left side disagrees with it.

−2−1012left −1right +1

The two one-sided limits on one line: −1 from the left and +1 from the right, 2 apart. No single number is approached from both sides.

The condition

The limit of f(x) as x → c exists exactly when both one-sided limits exist and are equal, and then it is their common value. If they differ, or either fails to exist, there is no limit.

They can agree. Take f(x) = x + 1 for x < 2 and f(x) = 5 − x for x ≥ 2. From the left, f(1.9) = 2.9 and f(1.99) = 2.99, heading to 3. From the right, f(2.1) = 2.9 and f(2.01) = 2.99, also heading to 3. Both sides give 3, so the limit as x → 2 is 3, even though the formula changes there.

They can disagree at a join. Take f(x) = x + 1 for x < 2 and f(x) = x + 2 for x ≥ 2. From the left the outputs 2.9, 2.99, 2.999 approach 3; from the right 4.1, 4.01, 4.001 approach 4. The limit as x → 2 does not exist, even though f(2) = 4. The gap 4 − 3 = 1 is the height of the jump.

xy34

x + 1 below 2 and x + 2 from 2 on. The left piece runs up to the hollow circle at height 3, and the right piece starts at the filled point at height 4. The two sides disagree, so there is no limit at 2.

2L⁻ = 1 f(1.2) = 0.6L⁺ = 4 f(3) = 5no two-sided limit

L⁻ = 1 but L⁺ = 4: the probes land 3 apart however close they come, so lim f(x) as x → 2 does not exist, even though each one-sided limit does

Bring both probes to x = 2, then close the jump

Two probes walk toward x = 2, one along each piece. The left piece lands on 1 and the right piece on 4 + Δ. Walking the probes closer cannot change where they land; only the handle beside the right piece, which raises or lowers it by Δ, can. Set Δ so the two landings agree.

One-sided limits that do not exist

A one-sided limit can fail too. f(x) = 1/x gives 10, 100 and 1000 at x = 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001: as x → 0⁺ the outputs grow without bound, so there is no right-hand limit. At x = −0.1, −0.01 and −0.001 they are −10, −100 and −1000, so there is no left-hand limit either.

xy

y = 1/x. As x → 0⁺ the curve climbs past every height, and as x → 0⁻ it falls past every depth, so neither one-sided limit exists at 0.

At the end of a domain

√x has no inputs below 0, so at x = 0 only the right-hand limit can be taken. √0.01 = 0.1, √0.0001 = 0.01 and √0.000001 = 0.001, so the limit as x → 0⁺ is 0.

The usual mistakes

Averaging the two sides. Left 2 and right 5 do not give a limit of 3.5; the outputs are never near 3.5. When the sides disagree, there is no limit.

Using one side only. A right-hand limit of 5 is not the limit if the left-hand limit is 2.

Using the value at the point. f(2) = 4 for the jump above, but the left side heads to 3, so there is no limit.

Doubting an agreement. Left 3 and right 3 settle it: the limit exists and is 3, whatever happens at the point itself.

A car park and a slippery road

In the first application below, the charge is a constant on each side of the three-hour mark, so each one-sided limit is that constant. In the second, the grip μ can only be positive, so the stopping distance is followed as μ → 0⁺, from above.

Worked example: A Car Park Whose Charge Steps Up at Three Hours: The Two One-Sided Limits at the Step

Question A car park charges $4 for a stay of up to 3 hours, $7 for a stay of more than 3 hours and up to 6 hours, and $12 for any longer stay. Write C(x) for the charge in dollars for a stay of x hours. (a) Find limx → 3− C(x) and limx → 3+ C(x), and say whether limx → 3 C(x) exists. (b) One driver leaves one minute before the six-hour mark and another leaves one minute after it. How much more does the second driver pay?

  1. 1.Fix which rule applies on each side of 3 hours. A stay of 2.9 hours, of 2.99 hours or of 2.999 hours is a stay of up to 3 hours, so the charge is $4 every time.

    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)up to 3 hours the charge is $4
    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)up to 3 hours the charge is $4
    A stay of up to 3 hours costs $4, so the graph is flat at 4 all the way to the three-hour mark.
  2. 2.A limit is about values near the point, not at it. The charge is the constant 4 all the way up to 3, and the limit of a constant is that constant, so limx → 3− C(x) = 4.

    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)from the left: $42.9 h, 2.99 h, 2.999 h: all $4from the left the limit is 4
    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)from the left: $42.9 h, 2.99 h, 2.999 h: all $4from the left the limit is 4
    At 2.9, 2.99 and 2.999 hours the charge is $4, so limx → 3− C(x) = 4.
  3. 3.Just above 3 hours the second rule applies and the charge is the constant $7: at 3.001 hours it is $7, and at 3.1 hours it is $7. So limx → 3+ C(x) = 7.

    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)from the left: $4from the right: $73.001 h, 3.1 h: all $7from the right the limit is 7
    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)from the left: $4from the right: $73.001 h, 3.1 h: all $7from the right the limit is 7
    Just above three hours the charge is the constant $7, so limx → 3+ C(x) = 7.
  4. 4.(a) The left limit is 4 and the right limit is 7. A two-sided limit exists only when the one-sided limits agree, so limx → 3 C(x) does not exist. The charge at exactly 3 hours is $4, because a stay of 3 hours counts as a stay of up to 3 hours.

    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)from the left: $4from the right: $7no limit here(a) 4 and 7 disagree: no limit at 3 hoursthe charge at exactly 3 hours is $4
    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)from the left: $4from the right: $7no limit here(a) 4 and 7 disagree: no limit at 3 hoursthe charge at exactly 3 hours is $4
    (a) The one-sided limits are 4 and 7. They disagree, so limx → 3 C(x) does not exist, while C(3) = 4.
  5. 5.At the six-hour mark the same reading gives limx → 6− C(x) = 7 and limx → 6+ C(x) = 12, so the graph jumps again, this time by 12 − 7 = 5.

    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)7 up to 12at 6 hours: 7 from the left, 12 from the right
    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)7 up to 12at 6 hours: 7 from the left, 12 from the right
    At the six-hour mark the same reading gives 7 from the left and 12 from the right.
  6. 6.(b) The first driver pays $7 and the second pays $12, so the second pays $5 more. Two minutes of parking separate them, and the price of those two minutes is the size of the jump.

    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)7 up to 12(b) 12 − 7 = $5 moretwo minutes apart, $5 apart
    047120369hours parked, xcharge ($)7 up to 12(b) 12 − 7 = $5 moretwo minutes apart, $5 apart
    (b) The second driver pays 12 − 7 = $5 more for two minutes of parking.

Answer: (a) limx → 3− C(x) = 4 and limx → 3+ C(x) = 7; they disagree, so limx → 3 C(x) does not exist, while C(3) = 4; (b) $5 more

Common mistakes

  • Saying that limx → 3 C(x) = 4 because C(3) = 4. The value at the point and the limit at the point are different questions. Every value just to the right of 3 is 7, so no single number is approached from both sides and the two-sided limit does not exist, even though the charge at 3 hours is perfectly well defined.
  • Averaging the two one-sided limits to get $5.50. A limit is a value the function gets near, and C(x) is never $5.50 for any stay at all. When the one-sided limits disagree, the answer is that the limit does not exist.

More limits problems, worked step by step →

Worked example: Stopping Distance as the Grip Runs Out: The One-Sided Limit at Zero Grip

Question A car traveling at 20 m/s brakes. With a grip of μ between its tires and the road, the stopping distance is d(μ) = v22gμ meters, where v is the speed and g = 10 m/s2. (a) Find the stopping distance on dry tarmac, where μ = 0.8, and on ice, where μ = 0.1, and describe limμ → 0+ d(μ). (b) The car must stop within 50 m. Find the least grip that allows this.

  1. 1.Put the numbers in: d(μ) = 2022 × 10 × μ = 40020μ = 20μ meters. The speed and g are fixed, so the whole of the distance is settled by the grip.

    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)distance = 400/(2 × 10 × grip)= 20/grip meters
    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)distance = 400/(2 × 10 × grip)= 20/grip meters
    With the speed and g fixed, d(μ) = 40020μ = 20μ meters: the grip settles the whole distance.
  2. 2.On dry tarmac, d(0.8) = 200.8 = 25 m. On ice, d(0.1) = 200.1 = 200 m, eight times as far.

    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on icegrip 0.8: 20/0.8 = 25 mgrip 0.1: 20/0.1 = 200 m
    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on icegrip 0.8: 20/0.8 = 25 mgrip 0.1: 20/0.1 = 200 m
    On dry tarmac d(0.8) = 25 m. On ice d(0.1) = 200 m, eight times as far.
  3. 3.Now let the grip fall toward zero from above. The top stays at 20 while the bottom tends to 0 through positive values, so the quotient grows without bound: d(0.01) = 2000 m, and d(0.001) = 20000 m.

    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on iceno limitgrip 0.01: 2000 mgrip 0.001: 20000 m
    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on iceno limitgrip 0.01: 2000 mgrip 0.001: 20000 m
    As the grip falls toward zero the top stays at 20 and the bottom shrinks: d(0.01) = 2000 m and d(0.001) = 20000 m.
  4. 4.(a) The distances are 25 m and 200 m, and limμ → 0+ d(μ) does not exist: the stopping distance passes every length you name. On a road with no grip at all the car would not stop.

    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on iceno limit(a) 25 m and 200 mtoward no grip there is no limit at all
    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on iceno limit(a) 25 m and 200 mtoward no grip there is no limit at all
    (a) The distances are 25 m and 200 m, and limμ → 0+ d(μ) does not exist: the distance passes every length.
  5. 5.(b) The target is 20μ ≤ 50. The grip is positive, so multiplying both sides by μ keeps the inequality the way round it is: 20 ≤ 50μ, and μ ≥ 0.4.

    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on icegrip 0.4, 50 m20/grip is to be 50 at most20 at most 50 × grip, so grip at least 0.4
    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on icegrip 0.4, 50 m20/grip is to be 50 at most20 at most 50 × grip, so grip at least 0.4
    For the target, 20μ ≤ 50. The grip is positive, so 20 ≤ 50μ and μ ≥ 0.4.
  6. 6.The least grip is 0.4. Check: d(0.4) = 200.4 = 50 m exactly, while a slightly smaller grip of 0.39 gives 51.3 m, which misses the target.

    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on icegrip 0.4, 50 m(b) a grip of at least 0.4check: 20/0.4 = 50 m exactly
    05010015020025000.20.40.60.81grip between tires and roadstopping distance (m)25 m dry200 m on icegrip 0.4, 50 m(b) a grip of at least 0.4check: 20/0.4 = 50 m exactly
    (b) The least grip is 0.4, and d(0.4) = 50 m exactly.

Answer: (a) 25 m on dry tarmac and 200 m on ice; limμ → 0+ d(μ) does not exist, because the distance passes every length; (b) a grip of at least 0.4

Common mistakes

  • Expecting the distance to fall by the same amount for each equal drop in grip. The grip is in the denominator, so what counts is the ratio: from 0.8 to 0.4 the distance doubles from 25 m to 50 m, and from 0.4 to 0.2 it doubles again to 100 m.
  • Turning 20μ ≤ 50 into μ ≤ 0.4. Multiplying by μ reverses an inequality only when the multiplier is negative, and a grip is positive, so the sign stays as it is. Testing the end point settles it: μ = 0.4 gives exactly 50 m, and smaller grips give more.

More limits problems, worked step by step →

Practice One Sided Limits in the app