Questions:
(A) Calculate
limx→π2cotx2x−π
(B) Calculate
limx → 0+x3e1x
without using L'Hospital's Rule.
Attempted solution:
(A)
Using the definition of cotx gives:
limx→π2cotx2x−π=limx→π2cosxsinx2x−π=limx→π21sinx⋅cosx2x−π
Since the first term will turn out to be 1, I carry on without it and making the substitution y=x−π2 as well as the fact that cosx=cos(−x):
=limy→0cos(y+π2)2y=limy→0cos(−y−π2)2y
Using the subtraction formula for cosine gives:
=limy→0cos(−y)cosπ2+sin(−y)sinπ22y=limy→0sin(−y)2y=
limy→0−sin(y)2y=−12limy→0sin(y)y=−12⋅1=−12
Does this look reasonable?
(B)
I know that the limit does not exist (it "becomes" ∞). I figure that ex is continuous function with respect to x and so:
limx → 0+x3e1x=limx → 0+x3⋅limx → 0+e1x=0⋅elimx → 0+1x
I am not sure where to go on from here. Will it be an argument based on 1x growing faster towards infinity than x3 shrinks towards 0? Or is there a smart algebraic trick that can be used?
In many cases, the limit appears to give a "zero times infinity" expression, but after figuring out the secret steps you can change it to something that you can calculate the limit from. How do you know when to stop trying and declare that the limit does not exist?
Answer
Your first calculation looks good as far as I can tell.
You cannot write limx→0+x3e1/x=limx→0+x3⋅limx→0+e1/x
- show that ex>1 for large enough x
- show that for some x0, ex0>x0, and then since we have already established that ex has a larger derivative than x, it follows that for large enough x, ex>x
- repeat to show ex>12x2
- repeat to show ex>16x3
- repeat to show ex>124x4
So limx→0+x3e1/x=limz→∞ezz3>limz→∞cz4z3=∞
No comments:
Post a Comment