i)
Suppose
x→0+limf(x)=l.Pick any ε>0. By definition, there exists δ>0 such that, for all x,
0<x<δ⇒∣f(x)−l∣<ε.Let x=−z. Then,
0<−z<δ⇒∣f(−z)−l∣<ε.The proof in the other direction is similar.
ii)
Suppose
x→0limf(∣x∣)=l.Pick any ε>0. By definition, there exists δ>0 such that, for all x,
0<∣x∣<δ⇒∣f(∣x∣)−l∣<ε.From this, we have
0<x<δ⇒∣f(∣x∣)−l∣<ε⇒∣f(x)−l∣<ε.Now, for the reverse direction (⇐), suppose
x→0+limf(x)=l.Pick ε>0. By definition, there exists δ>0 such that
0<x<δ⇒∣f(x)−l∣<ε.Let x=∣z∣. Then,
0<∣z∣<δ⇒∣f(∣z∣)−l∣<ε.iii)
Suppose
x→0limf(x2)=l.Pick ε>0. By definition, there exists δ>0 such that for all x,
0<∣x∣<δ⇒∣f(x2)−l∣<ε.Let z=x for x>0. This implies
0<z<δ⇒∣f(z)−l∣<ε.For the reverse direction (⇐), suppose
x→0+limf(x)=l.Pick ε>0. By definition, there exists δ>0 such that, for all x,
0<x<δ⇒∣f(x)−l∣<ε.Let z2=x. We have
0<x=z2<δ⇒0<z<δ ∨ −δ<z<0.Hence,
0<∣z∣<δ⇒∣f(z2)−l∣<ε.