# calculus limit qWatch

Announcements
#1
I got this far... trying to calculate the limit of the first thing I wrote

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
#2
actually I think I got it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
5 years ago
#3
(Original post by cooldudeman)
actually I think I got it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Note that

Can you see where you might have gone wrong?
0
#4
(Original post by Indeterminate)
Note that

Can you see where you might have gone wrong?
I get that but what's wrong with what i done to it? same result isn't it?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
5 years ago
#5
No, your first equation is incorrect. Your first step actually only holds true if

and

The problem is, the neither are true so your solution is invalid (which is why you've got the wrong answer). What you've done is turned it into an indeterminate form, which does not necessarily go to 0.

You should have, from algebra of limits, that if:

, as then where but, more importantly, are finite (and the converse of this does not hold)

Just to reassure you that algebra of limits doesn't work like this, a good counterexample is to look the following

Well, we can easily work this out directly as we have

However, if we do what you have done, we get this:

Which essentially comes down to saying you can't take the limit of one part before others.
0
5 years ago
#6
(Original post by cooldudeman)
I get that but what's wrong with what i done to it? same result isn't it?

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, see Noble's post above.
0
#7
(Original post by Noble.)
No, your first equation is incorrect. Your first step actually only holds true if

and

The problem is, the neither are true so your solution is invalid (which is why you've got the wrong answer). What you've done is turned it into an indeterminate form, which does not necessarily go to 0.

You should have, from algebra of limits, that if:

, as then where but, more importantly, are finite (and the converse of this does not hold)

Just to reassure you that algebra of limits doesn't work like this, a good counterexample is to look the following

Well, we can easily work this out directly as we have

However, if we do what you have done, we get this:

Which essentially comes down to saying you can't take the limit of one part before others.
ah OK I get ya. I got 1/2 after doing it again. so I should always turn it into a form that will avoid anything related to infinity?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
5 years ago
#8
(Original post by cooldudeman)
ah OK I get ya. I got 1/2 after doing it again. so I should always turn it into a form that will avoid anything related to infinity?

Posted from TSR Mobile
You certainly don't want to be splitting a limit up in such a way that one of them tends to infinity, because you won't get the right answer (and if you do, it's purely out of luck). You really have to try and do all the manipulation within the limit and try and get it into a form you can take the limit of in one step. You can do it in multiple steps, but you have to be very careful and make sure you know all the algebra of limit 'rules' (and ensure they are finite, most importantly).
0
X

new posts
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• Arts University Bournemouth
Art and Design Foundation Diploma Further education
Sat, 25 May '19
• SOAS University of London
Wed, 29 May '19
• University of Exeter
Thu, 30 May '19

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (310)
31.06%
The paper was reasonable (405)
40.58%
Not feeling great about that exam... (159)
15.93%
It was TERRIBLE (124)
12.42%