Not equivalent at a?

  • Thread starter Shaybay92
  • Start date
  • #1
124
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

When using direct substitution to calculate the limit at x = a some functions are simplified so that x = a is actually defined. For example:

Lim x->1 [(x^2 - 1)/(x-1)]

Limx->1 [(x-1)(x+1)/(x-1)]

Lim x->1 [(x+1)] = 2 (when x=1 is substituted in)

I understand that they can have the same limits despite not both being defined at x=1, however, what I don't get is why the original f(x) isnt defined, but the second one is. How can two equivalent functions not be defined at the same points? Can't all functions be simplified by factorising without jeapordizing where they are actually defined? This makes no sense to me...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
236
0
When you made that simplification, you assumed that [tex]\frac{x-1}{x-1}=1[/tex]. That's only true when [tex]x\ne1[/tex]. When x=1, it's not a valid operation, which is why the behavior of the function is changed there.
 
  • #3
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,793
922
[tex]\frac{x^2- 1}{x- 1}[/tex] is not defined at x= 1 because [tex]\frac{0}{0}[/tex] is not defined.
 

Related Threads for: Not equivalent at a?

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Top