Limited Value in Compound Functions: Remembering Number Paths

  • Thread starter Thread starter m_s_a
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding limits in the context of compound functions and the implications of approaching limits along different paths. Participants are exploring the nuances of limit existence and the relationship between variables in a multi-dimensional setting.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the validity of their understanding of limits when approaching points along various paths. There are attempts to clarify the relationship between different variables and their limits, with some expressing confusion over the implications of their findings.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants providing insights on the correctness of certain approaches and others expressing uncertainty about their interpretations. There are indications of multiple interpretations being explored, particularly regarding the existence of limits and the relevance of different paths in approaching a limit.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention specific examples and visual representations that may not be fully understood by others, leading to further questions about the clarity of the concepts being discussed. There is also a reference to the complexity of the relationship between variables in the context of limits.

m_s_a
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
When we think a value an end in the compound functions :
We remember that we in front of number from not a limited from the paths
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
We remember that we in back of path from not a limited from the numbers. Is that wrong? I really can't understand you. Sorry.
 
Dick said:
We remember that we in back of path from not a limited from the numbers. Is that wrong? I really can't understand you. Sorry.

He is not at the end a presence
Why ؟
The previous way the others is suitable ? why ?...
Look please:
 

Attachments

  • Plane.JPG
    Plane.JPG
    22.7 KB · Views: 451
m_s_a said:
He is not at the end a presence
Why ؟
The previous way the others is suitable ? why ?...
Look please:

I will. When it's approved. I think that gives me time to get a good night's sleep.
 
m_s_a said:
He is not at the end a presence
Why ؟
The previous way the others is suitable ? why ?...
Look please:

Now I don't understand what your picture is trying to tell me either. The proof of the limit in your first post is just fine.
 
Dick said:
Now I don't understand what your picture is trying to tell me either. The proof of the limit in your first post is just fine.


I did not understand your intention ?
I do not have a confirmation of the response
But look at the next example:
I apologize
Second : on the axis z = y^2
 

Attachments

  • Example.JPG
    Example.JPG
    21.6 KB · Views: 453
Last edited:
You have now posted 3 different pictures that appear to involve three different problems. As Dick told you before, the first is correct. This third one is also correct- except for spelling: since you get two different limits by approaching (0,0) along two different paths, the limit does not exist.

I'm not sure what the second picture was supposed to represent. But one thing you should be careful about: The line y= 2x, for example, in R2, is not in the complex plane.
 
HallsofIvy said:
You have now posted 3 different pictures that appear to involve three different problems. As Dick told you before, the first is correct. This third one is also correct- except for spelling: since you get two different limits by approaching (0,0) along two different paths, the limit does not exist.
My answer of the first question :
is correct or a mistake?


I'm not sure what the second picture was supposed to represent. But one thing you should be careful about: The line y= 2x, for example, in R2, is not in the complex plane.


My answer of the first question :
is correct or a mistake?


remember:
x=(z+z')/2
y=(z-z')/2i
z'=z par
 

Attachments

lim(z->0) is not the same as lim(x->0) or lim(y->0). It's lim(x->0 AND y->0).
 
  • #10
Dick said:
lim(z->0) is not the same as lim(x->0) or lim(y->0). It's lim(x->0 AND y->0).

Look into the proof of Coshi theory - Riman

f'(z)=f'(x)=f'(y)


no f'(z)=f'(x)+f'(y)
 
  • #11
m_s_a said:
Look into the proof of Coshi theory - Riman

f'(z)=f'(x)=f'(y)


no f'(z)=f'(x)+f'(y)

What have derivatives got to do with it? You were posting limit problems. Or something. I give up. I don't know what your question or problem is.
 
  • #12
I support the second solution
And I am not sure
 
  • #13
If you are asking does |z|^2/z approach 0 as z approaches 0. Then, it does. You're first argument is fine. If you think there is a problem because the limit of z* as z approaches 0 is path dependent, then you are wrong. The limit is 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K