Clarification on L'Hopital's Rule?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter krackers
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    L'hopital's rule
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on L'Hôpital's Rule, its application, and its relationship to Taylor series expansions in the context of evaluating limits. Participants explore the conditions under which L'Hôpital's Rule is valid and compare it to Taylor expansions as methods for limit evaluation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states the formula for L'Hôpital's Rule and questions why applying it to a specific limit yields a different result than expected.
  • Another participant emphasizes that L'Hôpital's Rule is only applicable in cases of indeterminate forms like 0/0, suggesting that using it outside these conditions leads to nonsensical results.
  • A participant proposes that Taylor expansions provide a more reliable method for evaluating limits, claiming they make L'Hôpital's Rule obsolete.
  • In response, another participant expresses skepticism about the obsolescence of L'Hôpital's Rule, arguing it remains useful.
  • A detailed explanation of Taylor series is provided, illustrating how it can be used to derive L'Hôpital's Rule under certain conditions.
  • One participant acknowledges understanding of Taylor expansions but prefers L'Hôpital's Rule for its simplicity in more complex scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability and usefulness of L'Hôpital's Rule versus Taylor series expansions. There is no consensus on whether one method is superior to the other, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach for evaluating limits.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the conditions under which L'Hôpital's Rule can be applied, highlighting the importance of recognizing indeterminate forms. There are also references to the limitations of both methods in certain contexts, but these limitations are not fully resolved.

krackers
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
The rule states that:

[itex]{ lim }_{ x\rightarrow c }\quad \frac { f(x) }{ g(x) } \quad =\quad { lim }_{ x\rightarrow c }\quad \frac { f'(x) }{ g'(x) }[/itex]

Right?

So if

[itex]{ lim }_{ x\rightarrow 2 }\frac { { x }^{ 2 }+1 }{ x-1 } \quad =\quad 5[/itex]

Then shouldn't

[itex]{ lim }_{ x\rightarrow 2 }\frac { { (x }^{ 2 }+1)' }{ (x-1)' } \quad =\quad 5[/itex]

Also equal to 5? However, it equals to 4. Can someone help me understand why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
l'Hopital's rule only applies when the limit on the left-hand side would give 0/0 or some other indeterminate form when directly evaluated. If you try to use it otherwise, you get gibberish.

Edit: Taylor expanding, on the other hand, will always give you a sensible result, and it makes l'Hopital's rule obsolete.
 
Muphrid said:
l'Hopital's rule only applies when the limit on the left-hand side would give 0/0 or some other indeterminate form when directly evaluated. If you try to use it otherwise, you get gibberish.

Edit: Taylor expanding, on the other hand, will always give you a sensible result, and it makes l'Hopital's rule obsolete.

What do you meal by taylor expanding? I think L'Hopital's rule is very far from obsolete.
 
A Taylor series expansion writes a function in terms of its derivatives at a specific point.

[tex]f(x) = f(a) + (x-a) f'(a) + \frac{1}{2!} (x-a)^2 f''(a) + \frac{1}{3!} (x-a)^3 f'''(a) + \ldots{}[/tex]

This can be used to explain why l'Hopital's rule works (and when it doesn't). Say that we're taking the limit as [itex]x \to a[/itex] and that there are two functions such that [itex]f(a) = g(a) = 0[/itex]. Taylor expanding both functions gives us

[tex]\lim_{x \to a} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = \lim_{x \to a} \frac{f(a) + (x-a) f'(a) + \ldots}{g(a) + (x-a)g'(a) + \ldots} = \lim_{x \to a} \frac{0 + (x-a)f'(a) + \ldots}{0 + (x-a)g'(a) + \ldots}[/tex]

Provided that [itex]f'(a), g'(a) \neq 0[/itex] (or infinity, or something equally ludicrous), you can see how cancelling out [itex](x-a)[/itex] will give l'Hopital's rule. The [itex]\ldots[/itex] can be safely ignored provided that both first derivatives are nonzero, and if they are both zero, then you can look at the next non-vanishing terms instead.

When [itex]f(a), g(a) \neq 0[/itex], you can read the limit off right away. Anything multiplied by [itex]x-a[/itex] will get very small compared to these constant terms as [itex]x \to a[/itex].

Taylor series expansions are a powerful, surefire way to deal with limits, but in the end, given that you've not even heard of them yet, I wouldn't worry about trying to use them now. Just use l'Hopital's rule only when it's warranted (and not when it's improper to use), and you should be fine. When you get to Taylor series (I assume you will at some point), do consider them for evaluating limits (and lots of other useful things).
 
I know what taylor expansions are, I just hadn't heard it used as a verb and I wasn't sure you were talking about that.

I see where the taylor method comes from, but when you are dealing with more complex stuff and especially when you are dealing with calculating end point behavior/rates of change, I think L'Hopital's rule is much cleaner and nicer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K