I've seen proofs regarding supremum and infimum of bounded sets in $\mathbb{R}$ involving an arbitrary $\varepsilon > 0$ and 'hard' inequalities (not necessarily strict, but hard to manipulate algebraically and wrt ordering). Most of what I saw involves the argument "letting $\varepsilon \to 0$" and I'm kind of baffled. Why is this logically valid?
For context, consider this proof showing that $\sup(\frac{1}{A}) = \frac{1}{\inf A}, \inf A > 0$ (Please check if the steps are correct).
Proof. $\sup(\frac{1}{A}) \leq \frac{1}{\inf A}$ is easy to show. Now for $\sup(\frac{1}{A}) \geq \frac{1}{\inf A}$,
Let $\varepsilon > 0$. Then $\exists x_{\varepsilon} \in A$ such that $\inf A + \varepsilon > x_{\varepsilon}$. Then $\frac{1}{\inf A + \varepsilon} < \frac{1}{x_{\varepsilon}} \leq \sup(\frac{1}{A})$. Letting $\varepsilon \to 0$, $\frac{1}{\inf A} \leq \sup(\frac{1}{A})$.
You have proven the following:
$$\forall \epsilon > 0: \frac{1}{\inf A + \epsilon} \le \sup\left(\frac{1}{A}\right)$$
Now, appeal to the following: if $f(x) \le g(x)$ for all $x$ in a neighborhood of $a$, then $$\lim_{x \to a}f(x) \le \lim_{x \to a}g(x)$$ (provided the limits exist).
Taking $f(\epsilon) = 1/(\inf A + \epsilon)$ and $g(\epsilon) = \sup(1/A)$ (constant function), you get the desired result.