[QUOTE=SiDi.35;2569397]I studied this few months ago and i forgot the formula :( And the name of the thing so that i can't google it :P
Is it 69? 13
[QUOTE=SiDi.35;2569397]I studied this few months ago and i forgot the formula :( And the name of the thing so that i can't google it :P
Is it 69? 13
Infinity? As x turns to 1, 1^1/2 = 1, 1-1 = 0, anything divided by 0 is infinate.
I prefer when limits turn to infinate and you can cancel everything out :p If x -> inf, it would be inf/inf = 1 :)
could it not also be 0. as you said anything divided by 0 is infinate, but also 0 aswell.
g(x) -> 1?
As x -> 1, (x-1) -> 0.
And x^.5 where x->1, x^.5->1.
So ((x^.5)-1) -> 0.
So g(x) -> 1, because (x-1)/((x^.5)-1) is always slightly bigger than 1, as x^.5 is smaller than x if x->1. But its never 0 as they approach the 0, but they are not equal to zero.
I think it's 1 :)
Cause you only need to consider the higher degree so it's x/(1/Vx) = 1
But i wouldn't be surprised of being totally wrong though :D
All wrong, the answer is neither 0, 1 or infinity :icon6:
This is actually a nice example of situations where a seemingly devision by 0 does yield a non-complex result. I'll give a hint: multiply the numerator and denominator by sqrt(x) + 1.
Cheers.Originally Posted by FragFrog
By application of the L'Hopital rule (I thinks that's what it's called):Since you guys solved that one so easily hereby a slightly more difficult one:
That is, what is the limit of g(x) for x -> 1. Took me quite a while to find this one (it's from one of my textbooks), I'm sure it'll be a better challenge than the last one.. :icon6:
DSCF0712.JPG
The final answer is 2.
*clicks neck*
*walks away*
[edit]Seriously though. I've never understood why the L'Hopital's rule works. Seems random to me to differentiate the numerator and denominator and "Hey Presto! There's the limit!".
Personally I prefer putting a number close to the limit (e.g. in this case 0.999) and sticking that into the equation and see what comes out of my Random Number Generator.[/edit]
Last edited by Ionic & Schizo; 28-08-07 at 01:22 PM. Reason: [Edit]...[/Edit]
Nice :), when its explained it always looks so easy '-.- lol.
We just started end last year with limits and stuff, perhaps this year (6th) I'll get some more, hope so lol :P
Drat, I seriously hoped this would be at least some challenge.. :sad:
You can by the way also use a different path, see attachment :smile:
:nerd: :smartass:
Simplifying surds used to go wrong for me when I was first learning them so I never think of that route nowadays.
Your hand writing's neater too. :frown:
To be fair, I'd totally forgotten about L'Hopital untill you brought it up just now :icon6:
Come to think back to my old classes on calculus I do recall several other possibilities to solve this one.. Still, I prefer not to differentiate if at all possible, it's always such a hassle :eh:
Since
[QUOTE=FragFrog;2571208]Since
Simple : 0 :D
About the hard one, i fear we don't use the same symbol in france, or either i got no idea of what it can be.
It wasn't titled simple for nothing. :)
Yup simple one is...simple :D :P
About the hard one, never seen those upsidedown delta signs or underligned v's....or is it about vectors?
Your hard problem is also 0. Are you sure you didn't mean the cross product? Ie, the curl instead of the Laplace operator (divergence squared) as you've stated it now? :eh:
SiDi: you do use that symbol. I'm pretty sure, after all, it's invented by a frenchman
Dang i'm at uni and i've still not seen this :P
Is it zero? :Sneaktong
Yes it is
See attachment. Again, I think you mean either the cross-product (ie, scalar curl) or divergence, but not the laplacian, unless I'm greatly mistaken in my proof somewhere which I kind'a doubt :Sneaktong
@ SiDi.35: bad university then, I got this stuff in my first year as astrophysics student :icon6:
actually sorry but the simple one ain't exactly right, since its been a huge problem to determine to what extent the 0 would have weight in large (i really mean large) calculations xP.
+inf x -inf x 0 = 0
I would go get some of my last years math problems but i have no idea where they are. Integrating on a 3D shape was quite hard, glad i have never had to actually use it, lol! Now i just use j alot, i swear my professors have some sort of imaginary number fetish. :)
i hate math but i passed algebra 1 and 2
problem is exactly that, your talking about an infinite large number (+ or -) that is just nullified by 0 anyways this is all part of numbers theory and algebric fundaments
only stated it cause tbh the insteresting part of maths is not the "calculations" of the problem, but how math works in a deeper level, face it like the philosofical side of maths xD
the answer would be 0 anywhere to simplify
Ahem i'm studyin computer sciences so i guess this is not SO important ^^'
You need maths for logical thinking, and thats what you need with computer sciences too...
Reply With Quote
