Limits : the answer is not obvious

  • Thread starter hermy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Limits
In summary, the conversation discusses two limits involving the expression (sin x + a)/(sin x + a), where a is a constant. The first limit, as x approaches infinity, is equal to 1. However, the second limit is undefined as x approaches infinity. This is because the expression is not defined for all values of x in a neighborhood of infinity. The statement (sin(x)- a)/(sin(x)- a) is not defined means that there are points in a neighborhood of infinity for which the expression is not defined. Despite the use of L'Hopital's rule, the second limit remains undefined. The conversation also mentions a hint to think in terms of imaginary numbers, but it is not clear how this relates to solving
  • #36
belliott4488 said:
I don't understand how L'Hopital works on a discontinuous function such as the one you've suggested.

Well, it works the same as if the function were continuous, because it doesn't actually make any claim about the value of the ratio AT the point a, only the limit as you approach a.

It can be useful for example, if you WANT to define a continuous function but you need to know "what value should I assign at x=a that will make the function continuous?"

For example, if I want to define a function of the form sin(x)/x, this expression itself is undefined at x=0, but I may be able to continuously extend it to x=0 by defining

f(x) = sin(x)/x if x is nonzero
f(0) = c

Then L'Hopital's rule will tell me what value of c (if any) will make f continuous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
jbunniii said:
Sure, and I apologize for becoming a bit impatient. It sounded like you were telling us all that we didn't know what we were talking about and didn't understand basic calculus, but perhaps that was a misread on my part.
No, I probably got too snippy because it seemed like some of the earlier responses I got just kept repeating the same assertion without explanation, which gets frustrating. Sometimes that's due to people not actually having an explanation, but there was no reason to assume that here.

jbunniii said:
I'm not sure of the specifics of your proof, but I bet it's stated in such a way that it never evaluates f or g at the point a, but only at points arbitrarily close to a. (i.e., on an interval of the form (a,b)). Under the hypotheses of L'Hopital's rule, the mean value theorem applies on (a,b), but not on any interval that INCLUDES the point a.
Yes, that is what it does.

jbunniii said:
Well, it works the same as if the function were continuous, because it doesn't actually make any claim about the value of the ratio AT the point a, only the limit as you approach a.
Once again, my understanding was too naive. I had thought it was telling us exactly what value of the function is at a, in cases where we could not examine the function directly, but now I see that's really not correct.
jbunniii said:
It can be useful for example, if you WANT to define a continuous function but you need to know "what value should I assign at x=a that will make the function continuous?"

For example, if I want to define a function of the form sin(x)/x, this expression itself is undefined at x=0, but I may be able to continuously extend it to x=0 by defining

f(x) = sin(x)/x if x is nonzero
f(0) = c

Then L'Hopital's rule will tell me what value of c (if any) will make f continuous.
Thanks - I've got a much better picture in my head now. c is not the "true" value of the function, which we had simply been unable to find explicitly before application of L'Hopital; rather, it is a the value towards which the function tends, and therefore which makes the function continuous at that point, but which we must insert "by hand". Close enough?

I think I get it, but my intuition is going to take a little longer to catch up. I still want to say that the "hole" in the function reflects only our inability to state the "true" value of the function, but that the limit allows us to discover the "true" value that belongs in the hole .. but that's not very mathematical, is it? I'll work on fixing my intuition.
 
  • #38
Hurkyl said:
In calculus, we usually don't actually care about the values of functions at individual points; it's the "bulk" behavior of the function that we're really interested in. So the thing we often do is to take the "continuous extension" of whatever partial function we have described. Unfortunately, this step doesn't often seem to be explicitly mentioned in introductory courses. :frown:


For example, consider the expression* f(x) := x/x. f(x) is constructed by taking the "diagonal" function [itex]\Delta(x) = (x, x)[/itex] with the "division" partial function [itex]q(x, y) = x/y[/itex].

q is only a partial function, because it's defined only for those (x, y) with y nonzero.

Alas, this means f is also merely a partial function, because the image of [itex]\Delta[/itex] does not lie in the domain of q. In particular, f is undefined at 0.

However, the limit of f at 0 exists; the "continuous" extension of f plugs this hole, and is the constant function 1.



*: x is a variable whose domain is all real numbers
Okay! You've now convinced me of what I suspected all along: a deeper understanding of this question requires more mathematical knowledge than I possess! I'm overwhelmed, but thanks again, guys.
 
  • #39
belliott4488 said:
Thanks - I've got a much better picture in my head now. c is not the "true" value of the function, which we had simply been unable to find explicitly before application of L'Hopital; rather, it is a the value towards which the function tends, and therefore which makes the function continuous at that point, but which we must insert "by hand". Close enough?

That's correct.

I think I get it, but my intuition is going to take a little longer to catch up. I still want to say that the "hole" in the function reflects only our inability to state the "true" value of the function, but that the limit allows us to discover the "true" value that belongs in the hole .. but that's not very mathematical, is it? I'll work on fixing my intuition.

I think it's because your intuition wants the function to be continuous, in which case the natural thing to do is to "plug in the hole" with the value indicated by L'Hopital. That's a completely reasonable way to think about it.

I think the main point of this thread is that there is indeed a hole, and it isn't automatically filled by the value L'Hopital gives you, and that you're free to completely ignore that value and "plug in the hole" with some other value if you like. You will get a discontinuous function in that case, but there's nothing invalid about that.
 
  • #40
Unfortunately, many students in Calculus I or Precalculus get the impression that "limit" is just a fancy way of talking about the value of a function! It happens that for continuous functions, the limit is equal to the value of the function. It just happens that because continuous functions are easy to work our ways of writing functions have developed so that all of the functions that we can write as easy formulas are continuous. Actually "almost all" functions (in a very specific sense) are not continuous any where!
 
  • #41
HallsofIvy said:
Unfortunately, many students in Calculus I or Precalculus get the impression that "limit" is just a fancy way of talking about the value of a function! It happens that for continuous functions, the limit is equal to the value of the function.
Well, now that you say it explicitly, it seems kind of obvious. I guess my intuition is catching up with my intellect.
HallsofIvy said:
just happens that because continuous functions are easy to work our ways of writing functions have developed so that all of the functions that we can write as easy formulas are continuous. Actually "almost all" functions (in a very specific sense) are not continuous any where!
Now, that's just crazy talk! :eek:

Any way to explain that to a non-mathematician? Are you using the word "function" in a more general and abstract way than the usual layman's way of using it?
 
  • #42
A function associates elements in a domain with elements in a range. Specifically, every element of the domain is mapped to exactly one element of the range.

The reason there are more continuous nowhere functions than continuous somewhere functions? In the discrete case, I would guess a combinatorial answer would suffice. In the continuous case, I don't know but I still believe it.
 
  • #43
Hi belliott4488! :smile:
belliott4488 said:
HallsofIvy said:
just happens that because continuous functions are easy to work our ways of writing functions have developed so that all of the functions that we can write as easy formulas are continuous. Actually "almost all" functions (in a very specific sense) are not continuous any where!
Now, that's just crazy talk! :eek:

Any way to explain that to a non-mathematician? Are you using the word "function" in a more general and abstract way than the usual layman's way of using it?

Mathematically, "function" has a very wide meaning.

But don't worry about it … all "sensible" functions that you're going to come across will be continuous and defined, except perhaps at a few "singular" points. :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
69
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
27
Views
708
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
684
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
547
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
28
Views
352
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
985
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
686
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
263
Back
Top