Is My Textbook Wrong About Limits?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fishingspree2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Introduction Limits
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of limits in calculus, specifically addressing a potential discrepancy between a textbook definition and an example found online. The focus is on the behavior of rational functions as they approach points where the denominator equals zero.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the textbook's assertion that if the denominator of a rational function approaches zero while the numerator does not, the limit does not exist.
  • Another participant suggests that stating a limit approaches infinity indicates that the limit does not exist in a specific manner.
  • A different participant reformulates the example from the internet to fit the textbook's framework, concluding that the limit does not exist due to the behavior of the function at that point.
  • One participant elaborates on the concept of limits approaching infinity, using the function f(x) = 1/x as an analogy to explain the behavior of outputs as inputs approach zero.
  • This participant also discusses the ambiguity surrounding the concept of infinity and its implications in mathematical contexts, suggesting further reading on related topics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of limits, particularly regarding the existence of limits when approaching points of discontinuity. No consensus is reached on whether the textbook is incorrect.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of limits and the nature of infinity, indicating that there are unresolved aspects regarding definitions and interpretations in the discussion.

fishingspree2
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
hello,
in my calculus introduction book, it is written:

Let a rational function: [tex]f(x) = \frac{{p(x)}}{{q(x)}}[/tex] and a, a real number

If q(a) equals 0, but not p(a), then [tex]{\lim }\limits_{x \to a} f(x)[/tex] does not exist.

however, while doing exercises on the internet, i found that:
[tex]{\lim }\limits_{x \to 1} \frac{{2 - x}}{{(x - 1)^2 }} = \infty[/tex]

is my textbook wrong?
thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would you say that the other limit exist?
 
Saying that [itex]\lim_{\stack{x\rightarrow a}}f(x)= \infty[/itex] just means that the limit does not exist in a particular way.
 
Let's convert what you have found on the net into the formula in your textbook. so q(x) = (x-1)^2 , p(x) = 2 - x and x--> 1. From here, we can say that q(1) = 0 and p(1) = 1. If you calculate p(1) / q(1), you get infinitity. It means that this limit does not exist.
 
As x goes to 1, the denominator goes to zero (since, of course, (x-1)^2 = (1-1)^2 = 0. The smaller the denominator, the larger the output of the function. Since x makes the denominator shrink, we can rephrase the limit to be: "as denominator goes to zero, the output goes to a very large number."

Lets look at a different, more simple function for a moment: f(x) = 1/x. As x becomes very small, the output ("y") becomes very very large. So what happens when x goes to exactly zero? This is hard to get out head around, so instead of saying "what happens when x is zero," we shall make an 'inverse function.' Now we will take OUTPUTS, and receive x INPUTS. That is, large numbers will yield small numbers (where the small number, when put under a one, yields the original large number.)

y= 1/x ; now use algebra to move the terms: x = 1/y.

Now when y becomes large, x becomes small -- this is the inverse of the original function, now we START with the large number, y, and receive the small number x in return. What value of y will make x become zero? As y becomes increasingly large, x becomes increasingly small.

We can now say:

[itex] \lim_{\stack{y\rightarrow a}}f(y)= 0[/itex]

The question is, what value of a will make f(y) become zero? No matter HOW large we make y, x will still not be EXACTLY zero. It will become very close to zero, but it will not actually BE zero. Hence when x is actually 1 in your original example, we say that the output is "undefined." However, it is useful for practical purposes to say it is "infinity," since as x goes to 1, the output becomes increasingly large -- it's a way of saying the output becomes large without bound, even if the actual function is undefined at the value x is approaching (in this case, we get a divide by zero error.)

In this sense, as y goes to a large number, x goes to a small number. We say the limit is "zero" or "infinity" because zero and infinity signify the apex of each extreme. There is a very ambiguous nature behind limits and infinity, so beat yourself up if you can't get your head around it (I don't think many people do, if any.)

As a side note, there is a lot of inquiry as to the nature of infinity. You may be interested in reading about set theory and the extended complex plane -- they make some odd use of the notion of "infinity," though I'm unsure how to interpret it myself so I'll avoid going into detail here.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K