Limit Analysis: Simplifying Rational Expressions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shackleford
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Limits
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around limit analysis and simplifying rational expressions, specifically focusing on the behavior of functions as variables approach certain values. Participants are examining limits of sequences and rational functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the limits of sequences and rational expressions, questioning the validity of simplifications and the behavior of numerators and denominators as they approach specific values. There is an exploration of whether certain terms can be simplified to zero and the implications of that simplification.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the limits of specific expressions, while others are questioning assumptions about the behavior of terms in the limits. There is an ongoing exploration of different interpretations regarding the limits of the functions discussed.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the application of limit properties and the treatment of terms in sequences. Participants are also navigating the implications of denominators approaching zero while numerators do not.

Shackleford
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
2
1) = 0

The denominator grows much faster than the numerator.

2) = 0

Each of these terms would simply be zero, right?

For 4) and 5), the f(x) = x3

I simplified these to

4) = [(x-2)(x2+2x+4)]/(x-3)

5) = [(x-3)(x2+3x+9)]/(x-2)

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/Untitled2.png

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/Untitled.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Shackleford said:
1) = 0

The denominator grows much faster than the numerator.

2) = 0

Each of these terms would simply be zero, right?
(1) is correct, (2) is not. In (2) your sequence is
\frac{1}{n}+ \frac{2}{n}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \frac{n}{n^2}= \frac{1+ 2+ 3+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ n}{n^2}

Use the fact that 1+ 2+ 3+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ n= (1/2)n(n+1).

If you are thinking you can take the limit in each term so that you get 0 for each, no that is not correct.

For 4) and 5), the f(x) = x3

I simplified these to

4) = [(x-2)(x2+2x+4)]/(x-3)
You can do that but the obvious point should be that denominator goes to 0 while the numerator goes to f(3)- f(2)= 27- 8 which is NOT 0.

5) = [(x-3)(x2+3x+9)]/(x-2)
Again, the denominator goes to 0 while the numerator does not.

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/Untitled2.png

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/camarolt4z28/Untitled.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For 2), I didn't know you could rewrite the sum in that manner.

I then get [(1/2)n(n+1)]/n = (1/2)[(n+1)/n] = 1/2.

If I had to guess, I would say 4) and 5) go to +/- infinity, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Am I right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K