Limit of x - lnx as x approaches infinity: Solving Indeterminate Difference"

  • Thread starter Thread starter TsAmE
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The limit of the expression lim x -> ∞ (x - ln(x)) approaches infinity. This conclusion is reached by recognizing that ln(x) grows significantly slower than x as x approaches infinity. While L'Hôpital's Rule can be applied, it is more effective to rewrite the expression as x(1 - ln(x)/x) to demonstrate that the limit approaches infinity. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly applying L'Hôpital's Rule and understanding the behavior of logarithmic functions in comparison to polynomial growth.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits and indeterminate forms in calculus
  • Familiarity with L'Hôpital's Rule for evaluating limits
  • Knowledge of logarithmic functions and their growth rates
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions involving limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of L'Hôpital's Rule with various types of indeterminate forms
  • Explore the growth rates of logarithmic versus polynomial functions
  • Learn techniques for rewriting expressions to simplify limit evaluations
  • Investigate alternative methods for proving limits, such as the Squeeze Theorem
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, educators teaching limit concepts, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of indeterminate forms and limit evaluation techniques.

TsAmE
Messages
129
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find lim x -> ∞ (x - lnx)

Homework Equations



None.

The Attempt at a Solution



lim x -> ∞ (x - lnx)
= lim x -> ∞ ( 1 / 1/x ) - ( 1 / 1/lnx)
= lim x -> ∞ ( 1 / lnx ) - ( 1 / x) / (1 / xlnx)

My working out is just getting bigger and bigger and I don't know what to do :(. I do know that this is an indeterminate difference of the form ∞ - ∞
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you learned L'Hospital's Rule?

If not you can just use logic to explain that lnx grows much more slowly than x.

lim(x-lnx)=lim(x)-lim(ln(x))=lim(x)-ln(lim(x))

Can you see why the limit is approaching infinite?
 
I tried using l'Hospital. I differentiated and simplified to get:

lim x -> ∞ ( -1 / x(lnx)^(2) + 1 / x^2 ) / ( -1 / (lnx)^2 + lnx ) and this ended up to be 0, but the correct answer is ∞?
 
TsAmE said:
I tried using l'Hospital. I differentiated and simplified to get:

lim x -> ∞ ( -1 / x(lnx)^(2) + 1 / x^2 ) / ( -1 / (lnx)^2 + lnx ) and this ended up to be 0, but the correct answer is ∞?
Yes, but you used L'Hopital's Rule incorrectly. It can be used only on expressions that are quotients, which you don't have. If you work with your expression, you can turn it into a product, and then turn that into a quotient.
 
Mark44 said:
Yes, but you used L'Hopital's Rule incorrectly. It can be used only on expressions that are quotients, which you don't have. If you work with your expression, you can turn it into a product, and then turn that into a quotient.

I differentiated the numerator and denominator according to l'Hospital's rule so I didnt violate the rule I differentiated the numerator: ( 1 / lnx - 1 / x ) divided the derivative of denominator: ( 1 / xlnx ) to get to the answer in my previous post
 
Is this what you're referring to?
TsAmE said:
lim x -> ∞ (x - lnx)
= lim x -> ∞ ( 1 / 1/x ) - ( 1 / 1/lnx)
= lim x -> ∞ ( 1 / lnx ) - ( 1 / x) / (1 / xlnx)

When I saw the above, I thought that you were using L'Hopital's Rule, but now I realize that you weren't. For the third line to be interpreted as a quotient it needs a pair of brackets or parentheses to clearly mark what is the numerator and what is the denominator, like so:

[( 1 / lnx ) - ( 1 / x)] / (1 / xlnx)

Now that I understand what you were trying to write, that is suitable for using L'Hopital's Rule, but with all those reciprocals, it looks like it would be very messy. Which might be why you ended up with a value of 0 instead of the right value, which is infinity.

It's much simpler to write x - lnx as x(1 - lnx/x), and note that 1 - lnx/x --> 1 as x --> infinity, so the whole product approaches infinity. I think that's a reasonable approach.
 
For lim x -> ∞ (x - lnx) using your form of x(1 - lnx / x) I got:

∞(1 - ∞ / ∞) which leads to an indeterminate type in the brackets.
 
Right. So to evaluate lim [x(1 - lnx)/x] you can break it up, which is legitimate to do provided that the limits exist (in the broadest sense).

lim [x(1 - lnx)/x] = lim x * lim(1 - lnx/x) = lim x * [lim 1 - lim(lnx/x)], with all limits taken as x --> infinity. You can use L'Hopital's Rule on lim(lnx/x).

There might be a better way, but if there is, it hasn't occurred to me.
 
Here is another approach. It is easy to show that for x > e the function (1/e)x is greater than the function ln(x) by comparing derivatives. So, for x > e, x-(1/e)x < x-ln(x), which gives a lower bound for our function. This lower bound is unbounded, which is enough to show that our original function is unbounded.
 
  • #10
You could also use x=ln ex and use the properties of the logarithm to combine the terms. The argument of the log will be an indeterminate form you can use the hospital rule to evaluate.
 
  • #11
vela said:
You could also use x=ln ex and use the properties of the logarithm to combine the terms. The argument of the log will be an indeterminate form you can use the hospital rule to evaluate.

That's a pretty slick method!
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K