Which other Real Analysis textbooks unusually recommend ending deltaepsilon proofs with a cluttered, bedecked $\epsilon$? [closed]
Closed as too generic by Mithicalâ€ on May 17, 2023 at 03:48
This post contains multiple questions or has many possible indistinguishable correct answers or requires extraordinary long answers.
This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.

Most textbooks conclude $\delta\epsilon$ proofs tidily with $\epsilon > 0$ alone, as in red beneath. But what's the official term for this alternative $\delta\epsilon$ proof, as in green beneath?

I forgot the particulars of another textbook that I read, not the one quoted below. It advises concluding $\delta\epsilon$ proofs with a littered, garnished $\epsilon$ as in red below, because it's quicker to define a new $\epsilon_2 := \text{ convoluted } \epsilon_1$ at the end (rather than working backwards to deduce byzantine, unkempt $\delta$'s). Please recommend such textbooks?
Frank Morgan, Real Analysis (2005), pages 178.
1 comment thread