The same thing goes for : y --> -2^(+) and not y --> 2^(+)

]]>I have a question about : http://imgur.com/RU7PvtJ

I actually understand what I need to do. I need to see if both one sided limits are the same to establish that the limit exists. The only thing which I just find weird is the "since y --> 2^(-) implies y<-2"

Can somebody explain me where this y --> 2^(-) is coming from ??

]]>Don't worry, it happens to everybody! I think you are right, I don't think assumptions are necessary for understanding - sometimes it's easier to start learning something from scratch!

Exactly!Anyway, I need to go now. Thanks (for the millionth time) for the dedication!

]]>Ah yes, but not all functions are continuous or defined for all x. I'm glad we got all that cleared up, though!

Yes, that's exactly the problem ! (I wasn't sure you would understand what I said.) Like you said, atleast I finally got it. I hate it when things like that happens In the best case, I should just forget everything that I assumed about a particular thing

]]>If you are interested in finding limits with curves that are not functions, try doing it with some parametric plots. They can be very interesting looking graphs.

]]>To find a limit for something that is not a function would probably require you to use parametric or polar coordinates. For example, you could find the limit of x as t tends to c, and the limit of y as t tends to c, for a parametric plot. Then you would have the point (x,y) for the limit as t tends to c. And for a polar plot, you would have to limit θ to avoid repetition.

In the case of your graph, there is no limit as x tends to -3 because it takes on two different values of y there.

ok, but at -9, the limit would exist, right ?

]]>In the case of your graph, there is no limit as x tends to -3 because it takes on two different values of y there.

]]>If we don't consider my graph as two separate functions(So, we don't have a function anymore, only a relation.So it doesn't pass the vertical line test), and we still want to evaluate the limit at the same point, it would still be acceptable, even if its not a function?

]]>