limit question


by redsox5
Tags: limit
redsox5
redsox5 is offline
#1
Oct23-07, 07:03 PM
P: 40
The problem is

The limit as x approaches pos infinity ln(square root of x + 5) divided by ln(x)

In the numerator only x is under the square root. I'm having trouble getting to this answer. If someone can take a look I would really appreciate it.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Scientists pinpoint when harmless bacteria became flesh-eating monsters
Asian air pollution affect Pacific Ocean storms
Rocket leak delays space station delivery launch (Update)
mathwonk
mathwonk is offline
#2
Oct23-07, 09:35 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
mathwonk's Avatar
P: 9,421
remember ln(sqrt(x)) = 1/2 ln(x).
redsox5
redsox5 is offline
#3
Oct23-07, 09:55 PM
P: 40
well you can multiply by sqr. rt of x -5/ sqr rt of x -5

that leaves you with ln x-25/ x(sqr rt of x + 5)

Gib Z
Gib Z is offline
#4
Oct24-07, 05:48 AM
HW Helper
Gib Z's Avatar
P: 3,353

limit question


mathwonk's hint intentionally disregarded the 5 within the argument of the log. Intuitively, as x grows large the 5 within the log becomes insignificant and can be ignored. More rigorously, the natural log of (sqrtx + 5) is asymptotic to log (sqrtx), which means that the difference of the two for a given value of x goes to zero as x goes to infinity, basically [tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{ \ln (\sqrt{x} +5)}{ \ln \sqrt{x}} = 1[/tex].

If you want to take your route, you would need to multiply by the log of (sqrtx - 5) instead.
JonF
JonF is offline
#5
Oct24-07, 06:51 AM
P: 617
if you need to formally show this do you know l'hopital's rule?
redsox5
redsox5 is offline
#6
Oct24-07, 08:20 AM
P: 40
no, i don't know that rule yet. But gib, the actual problem has ln(x) in the denomator, not the sqr. rt. So does that make it 0?
redsox5
redsox5 is offline
#7
Oct24-07, 06:46 PM
P: 40
well on a calculator i come up with 1/2
can someone tell me the best way to go about solving this?
Gib Z
Gib Z is offline
#8
Oct25-07, 07:06 AM
HW Helper
Gib Z's Avatar
P: 3,353
I know the denominator doesnt have the sqrt mate, but your missing my point. Im saying, The numerator can be replaced with ln(sqrtx) instead of the whole thing, because of the reasons i said before: the plus 5 becomes insignificant as x goes to infinity!! If you just neglected the 5, which you have shown you can do, take mathwonks post into account and take this problem down!!
redsox5
redsox5 is offline
#9
Oct25-07, 03:45 PM
P: 40
.5 got it thanks
ZioX
ZioX is offline
#10
Oct26-07, 04:34 PM
P: 372
Did someone delete my post? ;0


Register to reply

Related Discussions
a limit question.. Calculus & Beyond Homework 6
limit question Calculus 3
Limit question Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
need help with limit question Calculus & Beyond Homework 2
HELP! Another limit question! Introductory Physics Homework 5