Skip to content
← All questions

Why does checking a few paths not satisfy the universal quantifier in the sequential criterion?

The sequential criterion requires that *every* admissible sequence approaching the accumulation point yields the same limit. Checking only a few paths provides only a subset of cases; a counterexample could exist in an unchecked path, invalidating the universal claim.

Conditions

  • The criterion applies to all sequences in the domain approaching x0x_0 (excluding x0x_0).
  • A single counterexample is sufficient to disprove the limit.
  • Finite verification cannot establish a universal truth for infinite sets.

Reasoning, step by step

  1. Recognize that the definition uses a universal quantifier (∀\forall).
  2. Understand that 'few paths' represents a finite or incomplete subset of all possible sequences.
  3. Acknowledge that if even one sequence yields a different limit, the condition fails.
  4. Conclude that partial verification is logically insufficient to prove the limit exists.

Example

For sin⁡(1/x)\sin(1/x), checking the path x=1/(2πn)x=1/(2\pi n) gives limit 0, but checking x=1/(2πn+π/2)x=1/(2\pi n + \pi/2) gives limit 1. The first check alone would be misleading.

Common misconceptions

  • Believing that if multiple paths agree, the limit must exist.
  • Confusing the geometric idea of 'approaching from different directions' with the rigorous set-theoretic requirement of 'all sequences'.

Watch the explanation

Connected concepts

Explore next

Related questions

Find a method

↗
Understand why

↗
Meet the concept

↗
Find a method

↗

Answers are generated from source material and independently checked. Consult the original video or creator if something is unclear.