Proof for Limit Topic Formula: e^[g(x)[f(x)-1]]

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Raghav Gupta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Proof Topic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proof of the limit formula ## \lim_{x\rightarrow a} f(x)^{g(x)} = e^{\lim_{x\rightarrow a} g(x)[f(x)-1]} ##. Participants explore its validity, conditions under which it holds, and the implications of specific function behaviors.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a proof for the limit formula, indicating it is a basic formula they cannot find proof for.
  • Some participants argue that the formula is incorrect in general, providing specific examples where the left and right sides yield different limits.
  • Another participant acknowledges a mistake in their previous reasoning, suggesting the formula is true under specific conditions, such as when ## f(a) = 1 ## and ## g(a) = \infty ##.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of assuming ## g(a) = \infty ##, with a participant stating that function definitions should be considered over the reals.
  • One participant suggests that the formula is more general than a known limit involving ## \left( 1 + \frac{c}{n}\right)^n ## and proposes that a similar proof could be adapted.
  • Several participants discuss the relationship between the limit formula and logarithmic transformations, with one providing an alternative expression involving logarithms.
  • Another participant critiques a linked resource, claiming it contains nonsensical proofs related to limits, while others defend the need for careful consideration of limits approaching forms like ## 1^\infty ##.
  • One participant presents a detailed manipulation involving limits and exponential functions, suggesting that the continuity of the exponential function allows for certain limit operations.
  • Another participant questions the assumption that a specific limit fact is obvious, suggesting it requires l'Hospital's rule for justification.
  • Discussion includes a proposal to handle cases where ## f(x) = 1 ## separately from those where ## f(x) \neq 1 ##, indicating a need for a comprehensive approach to the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the general validity of the limit formula, with some asserting it is incorrect under certain conditions while others suggest it holds true under specific circumstances. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the proof and the conditions necessary for the formula's application.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific function behaviors, such as the values of ## f(x) ## and ## g(x) ## at the limit point, and the need for careful handling of cases where functions may approach indeterminate forms.

Raghav Gupta
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
76
This is a basic formula but can't find any proof of it. If anyone can explain or give a link showing proof it would be helpful.
## \lim_{x\rightarrow a} f(x)^{g(x)} ## = ##e^{\lim_{x\rightarrow a} g(x)[f(x)-1]}##
What is the proof for it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general, this formula is wrong.
f(x)=2, g(x)=2. The left side has a limit of 4, the right side has a limit of e2 independent of a.
 
mfb said:
In general, this formula is wrong.
f(x)=2, g(x)=2. The left side has a limit of 4, the right side has a limit of e2 independent of a.
Yeah , I have made a mistake. It's true for f(a)=1 and g(a)= infinity. What is the proof then?
 
g(a)= infinity does not make sense, assuming your functions are defined as ##\mathbb R \to \mathbb R##.
Also, the function value exactly at "a" is not relevant for the limit.

I guess you mean those expressions as the limiting values.

This is more general than the limit of ##\left( 1 + \frac{c}{n}\right)^n## for ##n \to \infty##, but I guess the same proof can be used with some modifications.
 
Is this the formula that you are referring to? [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} \ [ \ {f(x)^{g(x)}} \ ] = e^{\lim_{x \rightarrow a} {[ \ln {( \ f(x) \ )} g(x)} ] }[/tex]
 
Joshua L said:
Is this the formula that you are referring to? [tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow a} \ [ \ {f(x)^{g(x)}} \ ] = e^{\lim_{x \rightarrow a} {[ \ln {( \ f(x) \ )} g(x)} ] }[/tex]
No. This Is fairly simple the antilog would cancel the log to get the question back.
mfb said:
g(a)= infinity does not make sense, assuming your functions are defined as ##\mathbb R \to \mathbb R##.
Also, the function value exactly at "a" is not relevant for the limit.

I guess you mean those expressions as the limiting values.

This is more general than the limit of ##\left( 1 + \frac{c}{n}\right)^n## for ##n \to \infty##, but I guess the same proof can be used with some modifications.
See the second method in the link. From where the formula came?
http://www.vitutor.com/calculus/limits/one_infinity.html
 
Raghav Gupta said:
See the second method in the link. From where the formula came?
http://www.vitutor.com/calculus/limits/one_infinity.html
I hate to say it, but this link looks to me like it is full of nonsense. It pretends to be proving that 1 = e. I reject that out of hand. Maybe I am missing something.
 
FactChecker said:
I hate to say it, but this link looks to me like it is full of nonsense. It pretends to be proving that 1 = e. I reject that out of hand. Maybe I am missing something.
It is not absolute 1, that is equal to 1. But it is all about limits. It is actually 1.000…01, which maybe small value but not 1.
e has the definition like e=
##\left( 1 + \frac{c}{n}\right)^n## for ##n \to \infty## This also seems like 1 case.
See this link's example 4.This is a better link than previous although the formula is not given for direct answer
http://pages.uoregon.edu/jcomes/253limits.pdf
When I apply my formula here it is applicable
So what's the proof?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
suppose
$$L=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{f}(x)=1\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{g}(x)=\infty\\
\text{clearly}\\
\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}=\exp\left(\mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1]\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right)\\
%\phantom{\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}}
\text{since exp is continuous the limit may be moved inside}\\
L=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}\\
\phantom{L}=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\exp\left(\mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1]\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right)\\
\phantom{L}=\exp\left(\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\, \left\{ \mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1]\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right\} \right)\\
\phantom{L}=\exp\left( \left\{ \lim_{x\rightarrow a}\, \mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1] \right\} \left\{ \lim_{x\rightarrow a}\,\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right\} \right)\\
L=\exp\left( \lim_{x\rightarrow a}\, \mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1] \right)\\
\text{we have used the product rule for limits and the obvious fact}\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\,\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}=1
$$
 
  • #10
lurflurf said:
suppose
$$L=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{f}(x)=1\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{g}(x)=\infty\\
\text{clearly}\\
\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}=\exp\left(\mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1]\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right)\\
%\phantom{\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}}
\text{since exp is continuous the limit may be moved inside}\\
L=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\mathrm{f}(x)^{\mathrm{g}(x)}\\
\phantom{L}=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\exp\left(\mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1]\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right)\\
\phantom{L}=\exp\left(\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\, \left\{ \mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1]\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right\} \right)\\
\phantom{L}=\exp\left( \left\{ \lim_{x\rightarrow a}\, \mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1] \right\} \left\{ \lim_{x\rightarrow a}\,\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}\right\} \right)\\
L=\exp\left( \lim_{x\rightarrow a}\, \mathrm{g}(x)[\mathrm{f}(x)-1] \right)\\
\text{we have used the product rule for limits and the obvious fact}\\
\lim_{x\rightarrow a}\,\dfrac{\log(\mathrm{f}(x))}{\mathrm{f}(x)-1}=1
$$
Got it lurflurf for explaining in wonderful way.Special thanks to you.Thanks to others also for replying.
 
  • #11
I don't think the last fact is so obvious, but it follows from l'Hospital.
 
  • #12
mfb said:
I don't think the last fact is so obvious, but it follows from l'Hospital.
What hypothesis excludes the case when f(x) is the constant function f(x) = 1 ?
 
  • #13
Then the whole manipulation made above does not work, but this special case is easy to handle separately.
To cover everything, you can split the reals into two sets, one where f(x)=1 (where the formula is trivial and exact even without limit) and one where f(x) != 1 (where we can use the steps made in post 9) and combine them afterwards.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K