Notation Question: Understanding "y --> 2^(-) implies y < -2

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation "y --> 2^(-)" and its implications, specifically in the context of one-sided limits in calculus. Participants are seeking clarification on the correct interpretation and usage of this notation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the origin of the notation "y --> 2^(-)" and its meaning in relation to limits.
  • Another participant explains that the notation denotes left-hand limits, referencing the formal limit notation.
  • A participant challenges the correctness of the notation, suggesting it should be "y --> -2^(-)" instead of "y --> 2^(-)".
  • Subsequent replies confirm the challenge, asserting that the book contains an error regarding the notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the notation "y --> 2^(-)" is incorrect and that it should be "y --> -2^(-)". However, the discussion reflects differing views on the implications of this notation and its correctness in the context provided.

Contextual Notes

There is an unresolved issue regarding the accuracy of the book's notation and its implications for understanding limits. The discussion does not clarify the broader context of the limits being analyzed.

chemistry1
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a question about : http://imgur.com/RU7PvtJ

I actually understand what I need to do. I need to see if both one sided limits are the same to establish that the limit exists. The only thing which I just find weird is the "since y --> 2^(-) implies y<-2"

Can somebody explain me where this y --> 2^(-) is coming from ??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is just a notation to denote the left-hand limits. So

\lim_{x\rightarrow a^-} f(x)

is the limit of ##f(x)## as ##x\rightarrow a## but ##x<a##.
 
But shouldn't we say : y --> -2^(-) and not y --> 2^(-) ?
 
chemistry1 said:
But shouldn't we say : y --> -2^(-) and not y --> 2^(-) ?

Yes, you are correct. The book is wrong there (and it is wrong is the same place on the next line too).
 
micromass said:
Yes, you are correct. The book is wrong there (and it is wrong is the same place on the next line too).
Yes, I also noticed it. Ok, thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K