Hi, 1st post.
According to my text book the following limit converges to :
through rearrangement i can achieve this:
giving...
The denominator evaluates to but i can't see how to make the numerator equal to in order to achieve
agreement with the textbook answer. I had a look at using L'Hopital's but
the resulting expression after differentiation looked no simpler.
thanks
Thanks to both of you for such prompt replies.
Wondering if you might point out where my line of reasoning went wrong.
I thought that if numerator has to evaluate to
then I would be satisfied if I could show that
so I used the exponent identity:
to get
Why does this approach not work? Have I made an algebraic error?
Sorry I somehow didn't see your post until now and now I have some questions
My algebra is clearly crummy but could you please explain where exactly I went awry in an even more obvious way (if that is possible?)
Is it this part of my reasoning that is wrong??:
I'm confused
Ah ok, thanks Mr F. I'm not confident with my maths so I tend to distrust my own
working which leads to confusion and negative thinking towards maths in general . I'm still having trouble understanding your argument about the last two terms are able to be ignored in the limit
I'm thinking I need to review a textbook on this; do you know of any online
content that talks about this sort of thing in depth?
thanks