How does this limit problem follow from limit rules?

  • Thread starter Thread starter suffian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a limit problem using limit rules without integration or L'Hôpital's rule. The initial approach involved breaking down the expression and recognizing that the average value of the integrated function approaches a specific limit as x approaches zero. A successful strategy was to rewrite the integral's limits, allowing the application of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. By substituting variables and analyzing the resulting expression, the limit was shown to converge to one-third. The conversation highlights the importance of careful manipulation of expressions and understanding the underlying calculus principles.
suffian
[SOLVED] A limit problem

I just need some help showing how this limit systematically follows from the limit rules:

Code:
           # x     2
      1   #       t           1
lim  ---  #  ---------- dt = ---
x->0   3  #     2             3
      x  # 0   t  + 1

My first chain of thought led to breaking the expression up as follows:
1/x^2 * ( 1/x * Integral[0..x, t^2/(t^2+1)] )

Then I just kind of figured that the subexpression on the right was the average value of the function being integrated from 0..x and as x->0 the average value would approach x^2/(x^2+1), which led to:

1/x^2 * x^2/(x^2+1) = 1/(x^2+1)
which would approach one as x approached zero.

But clearly that's wrong (not surprisingly since I made a sketchy move in the middle) since the answer is one-third. Can anyone show me how to do this?

edit: possibly w/o actually integrating because this is an exercise in which you're expected to know the FTofC but not how to integrate that.

edit2: oh, not supposed to no l'hospital's rule either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your first thought would have worked if you only had 1/x out front instead of 1/x3. (because your limit would essentially be a derivative)

So the trick is to rewrite it in a form in which the fundamental theorem of calculus applies! In particular, if you can do a substitution in the integral so the bounds of integration are from 0 to x3, then you can use your thought to evaluate the limit.
 
Okay, I think this works then.

I tried to change Integral[0..x, t2/(t2+1)] into Integral[0..x3, f(t)]

Integral[0..x, t2/(t2+1)] = Integral[0..x3, f(t)]
d/dx[ Integral[0..x, t2/(t2+1)] ] = d/dx[ Integral[0..x3, f(t)] ]
x2/(x2 + 1) = f(x3).3x2
f(x3) = 1/(3(x2+1)), (x != 0)
f(x) = 1/(3(x2/3+1))

so..
Limit[ x->0, 1/x3 Integral[0..x3, 1/(3(t2/3+1))] ]

Which is the average value of the function inside the integral from 0..x3, which approaches f(0) as x approaches zero, which would be 1/3. I hope that's a sufficient way to solve the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's an interesting way to change the limits! But you got the right answer in the end, I'm going to have to look at it and see why it works; I never thought to do it that way.

Incidentally, I was thinking doing the substitution t = s1/3. t = x => s = x3, t = 0 => s = 0, and the integral became

∫0..x3 s2/3 / (s2/3 + 1) * (1/3) s-2/3 ds

which is precisely the integral you got.


Anyways, then you're left with the form:

L = limx->0 1/x3 &int0..x3 g(s) ds

We are also permitted to substitute in the limit variable, and I will do so to make things simpler. x3 = y

L = limy->0 1/y &int0..y g(s) ds

By the fundamental theorem of calculus, if G(s) is the antiderivative of g(s):

L = limy->0 (G(y) - G(0)) / y = G'(0) = g(0)

So that's how you rigorously justify your last step.
 
Thanks!
 
I guess, for the sake of completeness, I should specify that when I changed the limit variable, I had to use a function that is continuous and invertible near x = 0 (I think that alone is sufficient to permit the operation). y(x) = x1/3 satisfies that condition.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top