Finding the Constant k for a Solvable Limit Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter stangman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant Limits
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
28 replies · 9K views
stangman
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Im stuck on one problem in particular that I cannot figure out how to start but once I get past the first step I can figure it out. The problem is...
lim as x-->infinity (3^kx + 6) / (3^2x + 4) and you must find a value of constant k such that the limit exists. I was thinking that k might be 2 so that the entire terms could cancel out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try dividing the fraction with 3^(kx).
 
now when you divide 3^2x by 3^kx, that brings you to 3^2x-kx correct? Now do you factor out x to make it 3^x(2-k) in which case the entire equation would become 1 / 3^x(2-k) after substituting infinity into the other terms but I don't understand what to do with this last term.
 
Okay, start with [tex]lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{3^{kx}+6}{3^{2x}+4}=lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} (\frac{3^{kx}}{3^{2x}+4}+\frac{6}{3^{2x}+4})=lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{3^{kx}}{3^{2x}+4}+lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{6}{3^{2x}+4}=lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{3^{kx}}{3^{2x}+4}[/tex]. Now divide with 3^(kx) and factor out x, as mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
after following that I came out to have 1 / 3^x(2-k) ... is that what you mean by factoring out x? However I still don't understand what the value of k would be if i still have x in the equation. Maybe I am just not seeing something..
 
stangman said:
after following that I came out to have 1 / 3^x(2-k) ... is that what you mean by factoring out x? However I still don't understand what the value of k would be if i still have x in the equation. Maybe I am just not seeing something..

You now have [tex]lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{3^{x(2-k)}+\frac{4}{3^{kx}}}[/tex]. All you have to do now is to see if there will be a limit for different values of k. The interesting cases are k = 2, k > 2 and k < 2.
 
I advise you to use the "\" before "lim" in order to look better.

[tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty}[/tex]

C?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
I advise you to use the "\" before "lim" in order to look better.

[tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty}[/tex]

Thanks... I just don't understand how to get the [tex]x \rightarrow \infty[/tex] below the limit. The source code is the same, I don't get it. Anyway, off topic. :)
 
Last edited:
so now if k=2 the limit is 1, if k > 2 then the limit is infinity, if k < 2 then the limit is 0, did I solve that right or what am I missing now?
 
Last edited:
does it mean that the limit exists at k < or = to 2?
 
Yeah I caught my mistake for k < 2 right after I posted it but how is the limit not 1 for k = 2, when 2 is put into 3^x(2-k) that would make it 3^0 ultimately which equals 1, and 4/3^kx becomes 0
 
stangman said:
does it mean that the limit exists at k < or = to 2?

Yes, for k < 2 it exists, and it equals zero. Further on, it exists for k = 2, and it equals 1. Sorry, I messed something up. :)
 
Alright I finally understand it now, thank you very much for the help
 
ok one more question, if the problem was the exact same but this time approach negative infinity, I did out the problem and would the limit now exist at k > or = to 2?
 
If [tex]x \rightarrow -\infty[/tex], for k < 0, the limit is infinity, for k = 0 it equals 1/4, and for k > 0 it equals zero.
 
may I just ask why you use 0 instead of 2?
 
stangman said:
may I just ask why you use 0 instead of 2?

Because for k = 0 'something changed'. :biggrin:
 
you still use the same method of simplifying the equation as we did for the first question right?
 
Yes. In our case, it was all about bringing the function (whose limit is of interest to us) into a suitable form to apply the simple limit [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{x}=0[/tex].
 
true true, however in the first one we were able to cancel out the other side of the formula of 6/3^2x + 4 because of that simple limit. However now you cannot because when negative infinity is put into its spot it becomes undef
 
Right, I forgot about the right side, whose limit is 3/2 for [tex]x\rightarrow -\infty[/tex]. So, [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty}\frac{3^{kx}+6}{3^{2x}+4} = \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\infty, k<0 \\ \frac{7}{4}, k = 0\\\frac{3}{2}, k>0 \end{array}\right[/tex].
 
alright then that finally all makes sense, I just ask how or why you chose zero for k to test, is there a particular reason, I know you said something changed but I just don't understand that part.
 
stangman said:
true true, however in the first one we were able to cancel out the other side of the formula of 6/3^2x + 4 because of that simple limit. However now you cannot because when negative infinity is put into its spot it becomes undef

Because k was a factor in the exponent, and k = 0 turned the term to 1. The point is: try to find values which simplify the expression.
 
stangman, lol.. just curious, but I was looking through my book, and I saw this exact problem... I'm using a book called Calculus:Single Variable (Hughes-Hallett), lol just wondering if you're using the same book, and if so.. what school are you going to? :bugeye:
 
yea I'm using the same book as you, I am in uconn, u?
 
northwestern state university .. in louisiana.. I thought maybe we'd be in the same class or something and not even know.. would be hilarious.. but.. guess not.. ha.. take it easy then :P
 
lol yea thought so to, I also some other of your threads and they were problems that I had done to so I was gettin suspicious myself
 
i sent you a private message.. check it.
 
the correct answer should be this:
0 < k < 2 or k = 2 or k =0.
 
Last edited: