When using direct substitution to calculate the limit at x = a some functions are simplified so that x = a is actually defined. For example:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

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...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Not equivalent at a?

Loading...

Similar Threads - equivalent | Date |
---|---|

I Equivalent form for arctan? | Feb 17, 2017 |

I Proving equivalence between statements about a sequence | Feb 12, 2017 |

I The two equivalent parallel velocity vectors | Aug 17, 2016 |

Proof of equivalence between nabla form and integral form of Divergence | Oct 14, 2014 |

Trying to see how these are equivalent | Apr 15, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**