Solving a Limits Question in Schaum's: Uncovering the Answer of 1/(2*sqrt(3))

  • Thread starter Thread starter eprjenkins
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a limits question from Schaum's that evaluates to 1/(2*sqrt(3)). The limit in question is lim(x>0) ((sqrt(x+3))-(sqrt(3))/x, which initially appears to have no limit. To simplify, it is suggested to multiply by the conjugate, (sqrt(x+3)+sqrt(3)), to eliminate the denominator. This technique is commonly used when encountering forms like 0/0, allowing for the rationalization of square roots. The limit ultimately represents the derivative of the square root function at the point 3.
eprjenkins
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I have been reading through Schaum's and came across a limits question that i cannot figure out. I thought it had no limit but the answer is 1/(2*sqrt(3)). I have no idea of how to use latex so I will attempt it using basic characters; hopefully not to obscure.

lim(x>0) ((sqrt(x+3))-(sqrt(3))/x

I cannot see how to simplify in order to get rid of the denominator x.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Multiply the whole thing by (sqrt(x+3)+sqrt(3))/(sqrt(x+3)+sqrt(3)). This is called multiplying by the conjugate and its often useful. The effect is to "switch" the square roots from denom to num. (or vice versa) and to take the arguments of the square roots "out of them". Understandable?
 
Merci beaucoup, all is clear. If not too difficult can you give me a definition of the conjugate? Maybe its in this book...
 
eprjenkins said:
Merci beaucoup, all is clear. If not too difficult can you give me a definition of the conjugate? Maybe its in this book...

"conjugate" may mean several things. But in this particular case, say, we have the expression: \sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b}, then its conjugate is: \sqrt{a} - \sqrt{b}, or \sqrt{b} - \sqrt{a}.

This is a common practice in taking the limit of something, especially in the form 0 / 0. Since you can factor a polynomial, but not a surd. So, what you should do is to rationalize it, i.e eliminate the square roots.
 
This is some circular logic here but in case you just wanted to value and not how to prove it, you could recognize that the limit you stated is the definition for the derivative of the square root function evaluated at 3.
 
Thank you all. Gib Z, I have only begun limits; but I'm sure I'll get to derivatives and the like soon, only a few chapters away.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top