My question regards using the $\delta$-$\epsilon$ definition of a limit to prove that:
$\lim_{x\to2} x^2=4$
Now, in the book I'm working out of, I can follow almost all of the arguments made in the proof. The proof unfolds as follows:
Assume $\epsilon > 0$, we will show that there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that $\vert x^2-4 \vert < \epsilon$ whenever $0 < \vert x - 2 \vert < \delta$.
We see that $\vert x^2 - 4 \vert = \vert x -2 \vert \cdot \vert x + 2 \vert$. Then for all $x\in (1,3)$ it follows that $x+2 < 5$ and thus $\vert x + 2 \vert < 5$. So letting $\delta$ be the minimum of $\epsilon/5$ and $1$, it follows that, if $0 < \vert x - 2 \vert < \delta$, then
$$\vert x^2 - 4 \vert = \vert x - 2 \vert \cdot \vert x + 2 \vert < \frac{\epsilon}{5}\cdot 5 = \epsilon.$$
But why do we say that $\delta$ is the minimum of $\epsilon/5$ and $1$? Why don't we just let $\delta = \epsilon/5$? I'm not quite sure why we mention $1$ here.
