Find Limit: <Undefined,Undefined,6/5>

  • Thread starter Thread starter Whatupdoc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
AI Thread Summary
The limit problem presented involves evaluating three expressions as t approaches 0. The first two terms yield an indeterminate form of "0/0," which requires further analysis, potentially using L'Hopital's rule or algebraic manipulation. The second term can be simplified by factoring, leading to a limit of -1 as t approaches 0. The first term relates to the derivative of e^(-5t), which evaluates to -5 at t=0. The final result for the limit is confirmed to be < -5, -1, 6/5 >.
Whatupdoc
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Find the limit:

lim, t->0 &lt; \frac{e^{-5t} - 1}{t}, \frac{t^{13}}{t^{14}-t^{13}}, \frac{6}{5+t}&gt;

answer: <__,__,__>

well, what i did is just plug in zero for t which i get <0,0, 6/5> which is incorrect. am i missing something? or actually it should be <undefined,undefined, 6/5>
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For the first term, try l'Hopital's rule. For the second term, see if you can write the expression using only t^{13} and lower powers of t (splitting the denominator into two multiplicative terms would help a lot), and the third term of course doesn't pose a problem.
 
Whatupdoc said:
Find the limit:

lim, t->0 &lt; \frac{e^{-5t} - 1}{t}, \frac{t^{13}}{t^{14}-t^{13}}, \frac{6}{5+t}&gt;

answer: <__,__,__>

well, what i did is just plug in zero for t which i get <0,0, 6/5> which is incorrect. am i missing something? or actually it should be <undefined,undefined, 6/5>

Well, first, as I think you understand, "plugging" in 0 does not give 0 for the first two! Neither does it give "undefined"- the limit may exist even if the value does not.

Some texts make a distinction between "a/0" when a is not 0 and "0/0". Of course, neither is a number but we often refer to "0/0" as "undetermined" rather than "undefined". "a/0" is undefined because if we try to set x= a/0 we get x*0= a which is not true for any x. If set x= 0/0, however, we get x*0= 0 which is true for all x. We still can't give a specific value for x so it is "undetermined".

This is important here because: if f(x)-> a, a nonzero number, and g(x)->0, then f(x)/g(x) must get larger and larger- there is no limit, the limit is "undefined".

If f(x)->0 and g(x)->0 also, then f(x)/g(x) may have a limit. For an obvious example, take f(x)= x and g(x)= x. As x-> 0, both of those go to 0 but their quotient is x/x= 1 (as long as x is not 0) which has limit 1 as x goes to 0.

For your example, both the first two components become "0/0" (all interesting limits do!) so you need to look more closely. You could, as Brinx suggested, use L'Hopital's rule but that is not necessary.

The second component is a little simpler than the first:
\frac{t^{13}}{t^{14}-t^{13}}
That is one polynomial divided by another. The fact that t=0 make both of them 0 means that we can factor t out of both! In fact, t14-t13= t13(t- 1). Now, you can cancel and be left with \frac{1}{t-1}. What is the limit of that as t goes to 0?

The first is a little subtler.
Do you know that the derivative of e-5t is -5 e-5t and so the derivative at t=0 is -5?
Do you recognize that first component as being exactly the "difference quotient" you would use in the basic definition (replacing t with "h" perhaps) to find the derivative of e-5t at t= 0?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ahhh, i forgot all about the L'hopital rule. thanks a lot for the long explanation, i totally get it now
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top