Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity

In summary: The assumption that f'(a) and g'(a) exists is that they are two differentiable functions, and that they exist at a.
  • #1
georg gill
153
6
i wonder about this proof for l'hopital for infinity over infinity:

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ProofOfLHopitalsRuleForInftyinftyForm.html

how is this proved:

http://bildr.no/view/1011658
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
[tex] \lim_{x \rightarrow a } \frac{ 1 - \frac{g(c)}{g(x)} }{ 1 - \frac{f(c)}{f(x)}} = 1 [/tex]

I think this because [itex] g(c) [/itex] is a finite number and [itex] lim_{x \rightarrow a} g(x) = \infty [/itex] or [itex] - \infty [/itex]. So the numerator approaches [itex] 1 - 0 [/itex]. Likewise the denominator approaches [itex] 1 - 0 [/itex].
 
  • #3
The only thing one should proof is just that f(c) and g(c) is not infinite I guess.
 
  • #4
The planet math main article on l'Hospitals rule doesn't clearly state the hypotheses of the rule. (It even misspells the word "existence".) You are correct that the proof you linked ought to justify the assumption that f(c) and g(c) are finite.

I think the key to doing that is to interpret the hypothesis that [itex] lim_{x \rightarrow a} \frac{g'(x)}{f'(x)}[/itex] exists. (The Wikipedia version of the rule says "exists or is infinite".) As I interpret this hypothesis, it is not assumption that f'(a) and g'(a) exists as individual functions. I think we must try to argue that if the limit of the quotient exists at x = a then there must be an open interval containing a where both f'(x) ang g'(x) exist everywhere in the interval except possibly at x = a. The functions f and g are differentiable at those points, hence continuous and hence finite. We can pick c to be in this interval.
 
  • #5
Quote from proof:

This is because f(x) og g(x) were assumed to approach [tex]\pm\infty[/tex] when x is close enough to a, they will exceed the fixed value f(c), g(c) and 0.

I find the word exceed a bit strange if f(x) or g(x) goes to [tex]-\infty[/tex] it will have lover value then f(c) or g(c) I guess.

But one thing that would make it clear even though I can struggle a bit with the words chosen would be if it is so that a fixed value can not be [tex]\pm\infty[/tex] Is it so that [tex]\pm\infty[/tex] is not a defined as a value?
 
Last edited:

1. What is "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity"?

"Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity" is a mathematical proof that is used to evaluate limits of the form infinity over infinity. It is based on the l'hopital's rule, which states that the limit of a quotient of two functions can be evaluated by taking the limit of the derivatives of the numerator and denominator.

2. Why is "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity" important?

"Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity" is important because it provides a method for evaluating limits that would otherwise be indeterminate. It is particularly useful in calculus and other areas of mathematics where evaluating limits is necessary.

3. How does "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity" work?

"Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity" works by taking the limit of the derivatives of the numerator and denominator separately and then dividing them to get the final limit. This process can be repeated multiple times if necessary, until a non-indeterminate form is reached.

4. What are the conditions for using "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity"?

The conditions for using "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity" are that the limit must be in the indeterminate form of infinity over infinity, and the functions in the numerator and denominator must be differentiable at the point of evaluation.

5. Are there any limitations to using "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity"?

Yes, there are limitations to using "Proof l'hopital for infinity over infinity." It can only be used to evaluate limits of the form infinity over infinity, and it may not work for more complex limits involving other indeterminate forms. Additionally, it is important to be cautious when using this proof and to check for any potential errors or mistakes in the calculations.

Similar threads

  • Calculus
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Calculus
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top