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

  • Thread starter Thread starter chemistry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the notation "y --> 2^(-)" in the context of one-sided limits in calculus. Participants clarify that this notation is intended to denote left-hand limits, specifically indicating that as y approaches 2 from the left, it implies y is less than -2. However, there is consensus that the notation is incorrect, and it should instead be expressed as "y --> -2^(-)". This highlights a critical misunderstanding in the textbook being referenced.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of one-sided limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with limit notation, specifically left-hand limits
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical notation and functions
  • Ability to interpret and critique mathematical texts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of one-sided limits in calculus
  • Study the correct notation for limits, including left-hand and right-hand limits
  • Examine common errors in mathematical textbooks regarding limit notation
  • Explore resources on limit proofs and their applications in calculus
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone involved in teaching or learning limit concepts will benefit from this discussion.

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 ??
 
Mathematics 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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K