Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → For you calculus buffs
For you calculus buffs
2007-02-06, 11:12 PM #1
Ayudame!

Evaluate the following limits:

1. limit as t approaches 9: ( 9 - t) / 3 - rad t (sqr rt of t)

AND

2. limit as x > -4 (the # -4, not from the left side):

((1/4) + (1/x)) / (4 + x)



.....

it seems to me that neither limits exist.
Algebraically (unless theres some trick I missed)
and on my calculator.

when I graph and attempt to seek the value for entering x (or t for # 2)
The first one gives me y = *blank*
the second one gives me an error message

so I'm assuming I'm right in that neither limit exists.
Anyone care to dispute that?
This signature agrees with the previously posted signatures. To violate previously posted signatures is a violation of the EULA for this signature and you will be subject to unruly behavior.
2007-02-06, 11:23 PM #2
Using L'Hopital's rule on 1. will give you 6, I think.

Edit: Graphing it confirms that it is indeed 6. Try zooming in on the neighborhood of x = 9 and you'll see the y values approaching 6.
一个大西瓜
2007-02-06, 11:26 PM #3
For the 2nd limit

lim(x -> -4) ((1/4) + (1/x))/(4+x)

After fracking up my algebra the first time, I simplified it to lim(x -> -4) (x[sup]2[/sup] + 8x + 16)/4x. How do you evaluate these limits again?

For the 1st limit I get... 1/(1/6) which is...6
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2007-02-06, 11:33 PM #4
Originally posted by Pommy:
Using L'Hopital's rule on 1. will give you 6, I think.


Dear me that's something I haven't heard in a good few years. Good ol limit state calculus badness.
2007-02-06, 11:34 PM #5
And 2. comes out to be -(1/16) just by algebraic simplification.
一个大西瓜
2007-02-06, 11:52 PM #6
I don't think I'vel earned L'Hopital's rule yet...

And I think I need a run through the algebra on the second one.
I'm trying to work it out now, maybe I suck.
[edit]
nevermind, I completely forgot that a / b + c / d = (ad + cb) / bd, but I found it online.
...

I applied that rule once.

then I applied it to the top only, and i got this:
(4x+x^2)*(16+4x)/(4x)) / (4+x)^2

=

(x(4 + x) * (16 + 4x) / 4x) * (1 / ((4+x)^2))

=

(x(16 + 4x) / (4x(4 + x)) = (4x(4+x)) / (4x(4+x) = 1
*scratches head*
I guess I gotta go back over it again.
This signature agrees with the previously posted signatures. To violate previously posted signatures is a violation of the EULA for this signature and you will be subject to unruly behavior.
2007-02-07, 5:04 AM #7
L'Hoptial's rule = when a limit is in indeterminate form, you can take the limit of the derivative of the numerator divided by the derivative of the denominator to find the limit of the original.
一个大西瓜
2007-02-07, 5:28 AM #8
Wait, is the first one supposed to be (9 - t) / (3 - sqrt t) ?
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2007-02-07, 6:33 AM #9
Without L'Hospital's, the first can be simplified once you rewrite the numerator as (3^2 - sqr(t)^2). That can be factored in (3 - sqr(t))(3 + sqr(t)). Then (3 - sqr(t)) cancels out with the denominator and you're left with (3 + sqr(t))/1, so plug in 9 and you've got 6.

The second one is solvable with the ad + bc/bd rule, as has been said. ((1/4) + (1/x)) becomes (4 + x)/(4x), which is then divided by (4 + x), canceling out the numerator and leaving you with 1/4x.

↑ Up to the top!