Register to reply

First step of this simple limit problem

by sachin_naik04
Tags: limit, simple, step
Share this thread:
Dec28-09, 12:14 PM
P: 13
x->2........... X^4-8x^2+16

In the above "limit" problem i would like to know only the very first important step, the later part of the problem i will manage to solve as its easy, only the first step is a bit tricky

so what could be the first step of this problem

actually i am a student, plz help me thanks in advance
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on
Math journal puts Rauzy fractcal image on the cover
Heat distributions help researchers to understand curved space
Professor quantifies how 'one thing leads to another'
Dec28-09, 12:26 PM
P: 107
l'hospital's rule applies nicely. if you haven't learned that, then just factor the numerator and denominator.
Dec28-09, 10:30 PM
P: 13
no i haven't learned any l'hospitals rule, but how do i factor the denominator as its x^4

i want to solve it without that l'hospital method, plz help

oh i am hearing that l'hospitals rule is easy, i hope i will understand, so if possible u can also explain this rule to solve the first step of this problem or the other
but atleast something plz

Dec28-09, 10:40 PM
P: 21,397
First step of this simple limit problem

The denominator factors into (x2 - 4)2, which can be further factored into (x - 2)2(x + 2)2. The numerator can also be factored. Some obvious candidates are (x - 1), (x + 1), (x - 2), (x + 2), (x - 4), and (x + 4).
Dec28-09, 10:47 PM
P: 13

oh thanks a lot for your help really great

i will try it on my book and see if i have any difficulty, if yes then i will come back here
Dec28-09, 10:50 PM
P: 13
but one more thing in order to get that (x^2 - 4)^2 have u used your own mind or have u done some rough work
Dec29-09, 05:24 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 39,682
The fact that Mark44 wrote that in terms of [itex]x^2- 4[/itex] rather than x- 2 implies that he first recognized that [itex]x^4- 8x^2+16= (x^2)^2- 2(4)x^2+ 4^2[/itex] is of the form "[itex]u^2- 2au+ a^2[/itex]", the standard form of a perfect square. I would have done this in a completely different way:

The only reason you had a problem with that fraction was because both numerator and denominator go to 0 as x goes to 2. That tells you immediately that each polynomial has x- 2 as a factor. Divide the polynomial by x- 2 to find the other factor. Repeat if necessary.
Dec29-09, 06:43 AM
P: 4
I think u should try learning L'Hospital's rule too.....all you have to do then is differentiate the numerator & denominator separately(only in cases: 0/0, ∞/∞, etc.) and then apply the limit.
Dec29-09, 08:48 AM
HW Helper
P: 3,562
Actually I would've gone with a combination of both Mark44's and Hallsofivy's ideas.

Firstly, looking at the denominator, yes it's a quartic ([itex]x^4[/itex]) but you can treat it as a quadratic in some other variable.


if you let [itex]x^2=u[/itex] you then have:


which is a quadratic. Factoring this gives you:


And then you can substitute [itex]u=x^2[/itex] back and factorize further as Mark44 has done.

For the numerator it is a cubic, so the above method cannot be used but you can then factor out (x-2) since when you substitute x=2 into it, you end up with 0. This of course means x=2 is a root of the equation.
After that you'll have a quadratic so it's straight-forward from there
Dec29-09, 09:23 AM
P: 13
well i understood the problem,thanks everyone a lot

now i have one more problem for the following simple limit


now if u see the above problem and substitute the value of "x" that is "3" then u get the answer as -9/35 therefore the denominator doesn't go to "0" and hence the answer but the text book says the correct answer for this problem is 5/2, looks like we have to simplify the problem is it so, because i had heard that whenever the denominator does NOT go to "0" then we can directly substitute the value of x without simplifying the problem

so the question is should i directly substitute the value of "x", as the denominator does not go to "0" or i have to simplify it, if yes then why?
Dec29-09, 11:30 AM
P: 21,397
Since the denominator doesn't approach 0 as x approaches 3, you can simply substitute 3 in both the numerator and denominator. The value I get is also -9/35. If your book gets a different value, make sure that you are working the same problem as in your book.
Dec30-09, 08:03 AM
P: 13
ya thanks a lot

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Simple throwing ball up problem Introductory Physics Homework 9
Ohm's and Kirchhoff's simple problem Introductory Physics Homework 19
Simple part of a hard problem involving momentum/kinetic energy conservation Introductory Physics Homework 3
Simple absolute value problem with inequalities General Math 6
Quick help needed on a simple problem (not simple4me) Introductory Physics Homework 10