2) Multiply the whole expression inside the limit by:
Regards.
Thank you all again for your help. I've been studying with the L'hopital rule and for the most part haven't had any difficulty with it except for this one question. You guys have helped tremendously with this self-study course thus far.
It may be more of an algebra issue for me than anything else, but here's the question:
Use L'Hopital's rule to evaluate
I am having difficulty getting this into a quotient where L'Hopital applies. For that reason I have two questions about this problem:
1) Is an indeterminate form? To me it would be undefined because of the , which isn't quite the same as being in an indeterminate form for L'hopital as far as I know (which I'm more than willing to be wrong about).
2) What would be the proper way to set this up for L'hopital?
Thank you again.
You were right, I made a sign error when expanding and ended up with 2x^2 + x instead of just -x for my numerator.
This problem has been quite frustrating for me.
is undefined
is indeterminate
So using the method I had before, that would yield a limit of -1 (not infinity), but I'm not sure if it's legal to declare that =0 as x approaches infinity.
When I check my answer on my TI-89, it's giving me an answer of -1/2 . I'm not following it.
What other horrific errors have I made?
And was my methodology correct even if my algebra sucked?
Everything looks great up to and including your application of l'Hospital's Rule. However, when you let your method is a little lacking. It is correct to say that . However, that fact does not help you here, because the fact is, you actually have to take the limit, in the denominator, of as , which is like . Therefore, the nice quotient rule of limits does not apply because the individual limits do not exist. How should you evaluate this new limit, do you think?
L'Hopital rule is directly applicable only for the 'indeterminate forms' or . For an 'indeterminate form' of the type You have to use the identity...
(1)
In your case is and and so that is...
(2)
Now You can apply l'Hopital rule to the expression (2)... not a very pratical way to find the limit that is ...
Kind regards
Thank you for the responses... I didn't think I'd be so lucky as to be able to cancel that one out Ackbeet, however I thought I'd try it and see if I was wrong since it's felt like I've tried everything else. I tried to continue to apply L'Hopital from where I got in your question but it was a mess as I had to rearrange the function to take care of the standalone 1 in the numerator. After an application or two, it started to get uglier and uglier!
Chisigma, that identity is a new one for me (not surprisingly). All I've been doing thus far is putting everything into a quotient and then chugging away with L'Hopital until the problem yields me a limit. With that method, however, I've been running what seems to be endless applications of L'Hopital with ridiculous fractions that I'm undoubtedly destroying with spotty algebra. I'm sure that will help quite a bit. I've brought it back to my professor since I have hunted through my textbook, notes relating to the assignment, and everything in hopes to find some sort of reference to that identity that I missed, but I haven't. Is that a common one?
It seems that the consensus is that L'Hopital sucks for this function. Perhaps my professor made a mistake on this question.
Malaclypse: don't give up! I wouldn't use l'Hospital's rule twice on your original problem, only once. Try this on for size:
That last step I got from dividing numerator and denominator by x. Now, I think, you can use your limit theorems to finish. Do you see your way forward?
[EDIT]: I guess I'm not using l'Hospital's rule at all here. Do you have to use l'Hospital's rule on this problem, or can you solve as I've outlined here?