- (a) Suppose that $f(x) \le g(x)$ for all x. Prove that $\lim\limits_{x\to a}f(x)\le\lim\limits_{x\to a} g(x)$, provided that these limits exist.
The answer key, along with some other sources I saw online, provides a proof by contradiction. It starts by supposing that $\mathit l$ = $\lim_{x\to a}$ f(x) $\gt$ $\lim_{x\to a}$ g(x)=m. Then, it lets $\epsilon=\mathit l-m$. Then there is a $\delta\gt0$ such that if $0\lt$ $\vert x-a\vert$$\lt$$\delta$, then $\vert\mathit l-f(x)\vert$$\lt$$\epsilon$/2 and $\vert m-g(x)\vert\lt\epsilon$/2.
Thus for $0\lt\vert x-a\vert\lt\delta$ we have g(x) $\lt m+\epsilon/2=\mathit l-\epsilon/2\lt f(x)$, which contradicts f(x)$\le$ g(x).
I understand this answer, and I would have used it had it been the first thing I came up with. I instead put
$g(x)=f(x)+b$ for some variable $b\ge0$. So, if for some $\delta \gt 0$,$0\lt\vert x-a\vert\lt\delta$, $\vert g(x)-m\vert\lt\epsilon$ $\implies$ $\vert f(x)+b-m\vert\lt\epsilon$ $\implies$ $\vert f(x)-(m - b)\vert\lt\epsilon$. So, the limit $\mathit l =m-b=$ $\lim_{x\to a}$ f(x) $\le$ $\lim_{x\to a} g(x)=m$.
Does this answer work as well?
Note, you let $g(x)=f(x)+b$, but here $b$ depends on the point $x$, so $b=b(x)$, and you have to fix all the work afterwards.
Maybe an easier way to prove this problem is to define $h(x)=f(x)-g(x)$, in this case, we are given $h(x)\le 0,~\forall x\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\lim\limits_{x\to a}h(x)$ exists. We want to prove $\lim\limits_{x\to a}h(x)\le 0$