MHB Evaluating $\displaystyle \lim_{{x}\to{2}} f(x$): Does it Exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joel Jacon
  • Start date Start date
Joel Jacon
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Evaluate $\displaystyle \lim_{{x}\to{2}} f(x$) if it exist where $f(x)$ = x - |x| where x<2;4 where x = 2;3x - 5 where x>2?

LHL

$\displaystyle \lim_{{x}\to{2}} f(2x)$ = 4

RHL

$\displaystyle \lim_{{x}\to{2}} f(3x - 5)$ = 1

Therefore the limit x tend to 2 for the function does not exist.

Have I done correctly? If not tell me what mistake I made?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If I'm understanding correctly this is a piecewise function, correct? Like this?

$$f(x)=\begin{cases}x-|x|, & x<2 \\[3pt] 4, & x=2 \\[3pt] 3x-5, & x>2 \\ \end{cases}$$

If so, then for the LHL we should look at what function applies when $x<2$. Which one is that? Once you pick that function what value do you get for 1.9, 1.99, 1.999, etc.?
 
Jameson said:
If I'm understanding correctly this is a piecewise function, correct? Like this?

$$f(x)=\begin{cases}x-|x|, & x<2 \\[3pt] 4, & x=2 \\[3pt] 3x-5, & x>2 \\ \end{cases}$$

If so, then for the LHL we should look at what function applies when $x<2$. Which one is that? Once you pick that function what value do you get for 1.9, 1.99, 1.999, etc.?

Can you please tell me how to deal with the modulus. i know that x - |x| is the function to be used for LHL as x<2
 
pcforgeek said:
Can you please tell me how to deal with the modulus. i know that x - |x| is the function to be used for LHL as x<2

I'm not familiar with the term modulus for these brackets, but that might another term for it. I'm interpreting it as absolute value, meaning its distance from 0. You are correct that our $f(x)$ is $x-|x|$. Try plugging in numbers as I suggested. Did you try that?

$(1.9-|1.9|)=(1.9-1.9)=0$

What about 1.99? 1.999?

EDIT: It seems modulus and absolute value are synonymous in this situation. Learn something new every day.
 
Jameson said:
I'm not familiar with the term modulus for these brackets, but that might another term for it. I'm interpreting it as absolute value, meaning its distance from 0. You are correct that our $f(x)$ is $x-|x|$. Try plugging in numbers as I suggested. Did you try that?

$(1.9-|1.9|)=(1.9-1.9)=0$

What about 1.99? 1.999?

EDIT: It seems modulus and absolute value are synonymous in this situation. Learn something new every day.

If modulus is the absolute value then can you explain me why we use $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{|x|}$ as $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{-x}$ for LHL
and $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{x}$ for RHL for the question in which we have to show $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{|x|}$ does not exist
 
pcforgeek said:
If modulus is the absolute value then can you explain me why we use $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{|x|}$ as $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{-x}$ for LHL
and $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{x}$ for RHL for the question in which we have to show $\lim_{{x}\to{0}} \frac{x}{|x|}$ does not exist

Sure. When we are dealing with positive numbers, or $x>0$, then $|x|=x$. For example |5|=5. When we are dealing with negative numbers, or $x<0$ then |x|=-x. For example |-4|= -(-4)=4.

When are looking at a limit at $x=0$ on the left hand side we have negative numbers and on the right hand side we have positive numbers so when taking the left hand limit we consider negative values of $x$ and when taking the right hand limit we consider positive values of $x$.

Going back to the problem in this thread, what do you get for:

$$\lim_{{x}\to{2^-}}\hspace{1 mm} f(x)$$?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top