The existence of like factors in num/denom if in indeterminate form?

Daniel Y.
So I'm studying infinite limits in my calculus text (seemed close enough to good old arithematic to put in general math, though), and the following rule is mentioned:

Given two functions f(x) and g(x) defined for all real numbers, when given the quotient f(x)/g(x) where f(c) is not 0 and g(c) is 0, there is a vertical asymptote at c. But forf(c)/g(c) where f(c) = 0 and g(c) = 0 it is not guarenteed that there is a vertical asymptote at c.

Now obviously the crappy off-the-top-of-my-head definition isn't the perfect one given in the book, but I'm sure if you're able to help you know the one I'm talking about. Now here's the thing:

Every time I've done an exercise that was in indeterminate form for a value c and found analytically for a value of x that isn't defined, I've found that the numerator and denominator have the same factor that can be canceled out. Consider the following:

f(x) = (x^2 -1)/(x-1), when you 'input' f(1) you get 0/0, indeterminate form. But you can factor the equation to (x+1)(x-1)/(x-1), cancel out the x-1, and see that f(1) is really 2 (or, at least, a function agreeing at every point except x = 1 is really 2).

This has been my experience with all exercises involving indeterminate form. So my question(s) becomes: if f(c)/g(c) = 0/0, then does this imply the existence of like factors in both the numerator and denominator that can be factored out and canceled out? If so how is this proven? Even a simple why would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It does not imply that. |x|/x tends to the indeterminate 0/0 as x -> 0, but its limit does not exist.

Also, more broadly, not all functions have easily-expressible form.
 
CRGreathouse said:
It does not imply that. |x|/x tends to the indeterminate 0/0 as x -> 0, but its limit does not exist.

Also, more broadly, not all functions have easily-expressible form.

Could you give me an example of a function which tends to indeterminate form for some c, and has a limit like in my example, but doesn't have the factorable feature I mentioned in the OP? Thanks for the elucidation CR, but I need my hunch proven wrong with those conditions or it'll still be nagging at me (I can't think of any examples where it doesn't work, myself). Thanks.
 
Daniel Y. said:
Could you give me an example of a function which tends to indeterminate form for some c, and has a limit like in my example, but doesn't have the factorable feature I mentioned in the OP? Thanks for the elucidation CR, but I need my hunch proven wrong with those conditions or it'll still be nagging at me (I can't think of any examples where it doesn't work, myself). Thanks.

\frac{sinx}{x}


if you put x=0 you'll get 0/0 but the limit is actually 1.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top