x → 1 lim ( 1 − x 2 3 2 3 − 1 − x 1 1 1 1 ) = ?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
This solution assumes that the limit exists and is finite, in order to justify the steps. This is because we can perform arithmetic on the left-hand limit and the right-hand limit.
If however, the limit does not exist, or the limit is infinite, then such an approach could lead to an erroneous solution.
Will that really work (considering x and y as dummy variables)? I am not sure that you can change the variables without bothering about the relative values. Not sure whether this really going to work.
Log in to reply
That is a good question to ask.
If we assume that the limit exists and is finite, then the steps taken are valid. This is because we can perform arithmetic on the left-hand limit and the right-hand limit.
If however, the limit does not exist, or the limit is infinite, then such a approach could lead to an erroneous solution.
Short and sweet.
Peter Macgregor wrote "I like Karthik's ingenuity, but I think there is a missing step in his argument."
I completely agree, but I have an easy fix for it: call the difference of the fractions f(x) and let g(x)=(x-1)f(x).
Then it can be seen that in a neighborhood of one g is a smooth function (a difference of two smooth functions), with g(1)=1-1=0, and that the limit sought equals g'(1) and hence exists.
Really good solution! +1
Wow! very neat, very nice, thank you Karthik :-)
nice solution.....
Simply wonderful Karthik. You just underscored the beauty of Math!!
Iitian hoga koi ye
Yes keshavendra is right and unless a LHL and RHL both are finite and equal we cannot apply the limit
Awesome one bro
why set x = 1/y ? . .. why not set x = 3/4y or 1/2y or some arbitrary real number times y?
I like how you introduced dummy variables gonna try this for myself. Thank You!
Just plot the graph and you will clearly notice as x approaches 1 the limit of the function goes to 6. So simple and sweet
nice joke!!
Can you explain how you got from 4th eqn to eqn (2) (the 3rd eqn)?
Consider a more general form of this limit: L = x → 1 lim ( 1 − x p p − 1 − x q q )
1) Let x = 1 + t with t → 0 , It follows that L = t → 0 lim ( 1 − ( 1 + t ) p p − 1 − ( 1 + t ) q q ) 2) According to taylor series expansions we have ( 1 + t ) a = 1 + a t + 2 1 ( a − 1 ) a t 2 + O ( t 3 ) Use this series expansions to rewrite ( 1 + t ) p and ( 1 + t ) q neglecting O ( t 3 ) : L = t → 0 lim ( − p t − 2 1 ( p − 1 ) p t 2 p − − q t − 2 1 ( q − 1 ) q t 2 q ) 3) Go ahead: L = lim t → 0 ( t 1 ( − 1 − 2 1 ( p − 1 ) t 1 − − 1 − 2 1 ( q − 1 ) t 1 ) ) = lim t → 0 ( t 1 ( 1 + 2 1 ( q − 1 ) t 1 − 1 + 2 1 ( p − 1 ) t 1 ) ) = lim t → 0 ( t 1 ( 1 + 2 1 ( q − 1 ) t ) ( 1 + 2 1 ( p − 1 ) t ) 2 1 ( p − 1 ) t − 2 1 ( q − 1 ) t ) = lim t → 0 ( ( 1 + 2 1 ( q − 1 ) t ) ( 1 + 2 1 ( p − 1 ) t ) 2 1 ( p − 1 ) − 2 1 ( q − 1 ) ) = 2 p − q
wow ! . .... beauty man! .... Generalisation is always great! .... were'd u get this ? ORIGINAL?
Log in to reply
Hey Abhinav, thanks man! Problem is not original, general form asked by someone in open study :-)
Nice method, Sir! +1
Excellent problem Kazem! I did this in two ways (1) factoring (1-x)^2 from numerator and denominator and taking limits of the residual polynomials in x, and (2) of course, L'Hospital's method. Now we know 4 ways of doing this problem.
oh my goodness. wow +1
What is in this situation that you may just "neglect O(t^3)"?
Log in to reply
Hi Adrian,
Its a 0 − 0 case limit. If I just neglect O ( t 2 ) the limit will be 0 − 0 again! Therefore, in order to get the right answer we should neglect higher orders.
Rewrite as x → 1 lim ( 1 − x 2 3 ) ( 1 − x 1 1 ) ( 2 3 ) ( 1 − x 1 1 ) − ( 1 1 ) ( 1 − x 2 3 )
If you try substituting 1 in for x, you'll get 0/0. L'Hopital's rule can be applied here.
Expand. x → 1 lim 1 − x 1 1 − x 2 3 + x 3 4 1 2 − 2 3 x 1 1 + 1 1 x 2 3
Differentiate the numerator and denominator separately. x → 1 lim − 1 1 x 1 0 − 2 3 x 2 2 + 3 4 x 3 3 − 2 3 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ x 1 0 + 2 3 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ x 2 2
Substituting 1 for x still gives 0/0, so differentiate the numerator and denominator separately, again. x → 1 lim − 1 0 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ x 9 − 2 3 ⋅ 2 2 ⋅ x 2 1 + 3 4 ⋅ 3 3 ⋅ x 3 2 − 2 3 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ 1 0 ⋅ x 9 + 2 3 ⋅ 2 2 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ x 2 1
Substituting 1 for x now gives us − 1 0 ⋅ 1 1 − 2 3 ⋅ 2 2 + 3 4 ⋅ 3 3 − 2 3 ⋅ 1 1 ⋅ 1 0 + 2 3 ⋅ 2 2 ⋅ 1 1 , which simplifies to 6 .
Thanks :-)
Very good! Simple and direct! Congratulations!
Very nice Hobart. This I found to be the easiest method for me.
hopital rull 2 ok
Very nice solution.
Let the limit be L .
L = x → 1 lim ( 1 − x 2 3 2 3 − 1 − x 1 1 1 1 )
L = x → 1 lim ( ( 1 − x 2 3 ) ( 1 − x 1 1 ) 2 3 ( 1 − x 1 1 ) − 1 1 ( 1 − x 2 3 ) )
L = x → 1 lim ( 1 + x 3 4 − x 2 3 − x 1 1 1 2 − 2 3 x 1 1 + 1 1 x 2 3 )
This is of the form 0 0 . So we will use L-Hopital's Rule.
L = x → 1 lim ( 3 4 x 3 3 − 2 3 x 2 2 − 1 1 x 1 0 − 2 3 . 1 1 x 1 0 + 1 1 . 2 3 x 2 2 )
Which is again of the form 0 0 .
L = x → 1 lim ( 3 4 . 3 3 x 3 2 − 2 3 . 2 2 x 2 1 − 1 1 . 1 0 x 9 − 2 3 . 1 1 . 1 0 x 9 + 1 1 . 2 3 . 2 2 x 2 1 )
L = 1 1 ( 3 4 . 3 − 2 3 . 2 − 1 0 ) 2 3 . 1 1 ( 2 2 − 1 0 ) = 1 1 ( 4 6 ) 2 3 . 1 1 ( 1 2 ) = 6
Thank you.
I like Karthik's ingenuity, but I think there is a missing step in his argument. As it stands it could be applied to each term separately to show, for example, that
x → 1 lim ( 1 − x 2 3 2 3 ) = 2 2 3 which is clearly wrong!
To make his argument watertight he would need to show that his two limits really are equal as one approaches x = 1 from above and the other one approaches from below.
My approach was to use l'Hopital's rule. Consider the more general problem
x → 1 lim ( 1 − x p p − 1 − x q q ) = x → 1 lim ( ( 1 − x p ) ( 1 − x q ) p ( 1 − x q ) − q ( 1 − x p ) )
Since this is indeterminate when x = 1 we can use l'Hopital's rule to get
x → 1 lim ( − q x q − 1 − p x p − 1 + ( p + q ) x p + q − 1 p q ( x p − 1 − x q − 1 ) )
This is still indeterminate when x = 1 so we can use l'Hopital again to get
x → 1 lim ( − q ( q − 1 ) x q − 2 − p ( p − 1 ) x p − 2 + ( p + q ) ( p + q − 1 ) x p + q − 2 p q ( ( p − 1 ) x p − 2 − ( q − 1 ) x q − 2 ) ) )
Now at last substituting x = 1 gives the intelligible answer 2 p − q
In the given problem p = 2 3 and q = 1 1 leading to the answer 6
I must admit that this is all rather messy, but I love the way l'Hopital's rule makes use of a seeming disaster!
Thanks for your solution and comments for the problem sir :-)
If we do some algebra the original expression is equal to:
lim x → 1 ( ( 1 − x 2 3 ) ( 1 − x 1 1 ) 2 3 ( 1 − x 1 1 ) − 1 1 ( 1 − x 2 3 ) )
= lim x → 1 ( ( 1 − x ) 2 ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 2 2 ) ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 1 0 ) 2 3 ( 1 − x 1 1 ) − 1 1 ( 1 − x 2 3 ) )
Let's factor 1 − x from the numerator and we get:
= lim x → 1 ( ( 1 − x ) 2 ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 2 2 ) ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 1 0 ) ( 1 − x ) ( 2 3 ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 1 0 ) − 1 1 ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 2 2 ) )
We can cancel 1 − x from the top. Now if we look at the polynomial on the numerator (let's call it p ( x ) ) we see that:
p ( 1 ) = 2 3 ( 1 + 1 + 1 2 + . . . + 1 1 0 ) − 1 1 ( 1 + 1 + 1 2 + . . . + 1 2 2 ) = 2 3 ⋅ 1 1 − 1 1 ⋅ 2 3 = 0 then x − 1 is a factor of p ( x ) .
Let's say p ( x ) = q ( x ) ( x − 1 ) then by long division we get that
q ( x ) = − 1 1 x 2 1 − 1 1 ( 2 ) x 2 0 + . . . + ( − 1 1 ) ( 1 1 ) x 1 1 + ( − 1 1 ) ( 1 2 ) x 1 0 + 1 2 ( − 1 0 ) x 9 + 1 2 ( − 9 ) x 8 + . . . + 1 2 ( − 2 ) x 1 + 1 2 ( − 1 ) cool :)
Now the original limit is just:
lim x → 1 ( s ( x ) q ( x ) ) = s ( 1 ) q ( 1 )
Here s ( x ) = − ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 2 2 ) ( 1 + x + x 2 + . . . + x 1 0 )
And the result is just 6 . :)
(I would like to know if that method can be generalized for any p and q as in the other solutions)
Hey guys just cross multiply and make the limit into one fn which it u put X=1, you get 0/0 form therefore use l'hospital rule twice to get a non 0/0 answer which is 6.
Tested various selected values of x and noted where values headed as x ⇒ 1 and saw the difference was approaching (relatively quickly) 6 .
I know that's cheating, so to speak, but it worked. 😏
Lhopital rule always works... Double differentiate both the numerator and denominator....
"Lhopital rule always works..."(sic) is in general a wrong statement.
L'Hopital rule can be applied only if x → 0 or ∞ lim q p becomes either 0 0 o r ∞ ∞ .Other indeterminate forms can be solved using L ' Hopitals rule after some tweaking ( check out Ben Whitmore's solution in this problem this for an example of how L'hopital can be used sometimes for other indeterminate cases )
Right now, the fraction 1 − x 2 3 2 3 is not of indeterminate form, so you need to be more specific about what you're doing.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let L = x → 1 lim ( 1 − x 2 3 2 3 − 1 − x 1 1 1 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 1 )
Now put x = y 1
When x gets closer to 1 , y → 1 .
∴ L = y → 1 lim ( 1 − y 2 3 − 2 3 y 2 3 + 1 − y 1 1 1 1 y 1 1 )
∴ L = x → 1 lim ( 1 − x 2 3 − 2 3 x 2 3 + 1 − x 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) (Since x and y are dummy variables)
Adding ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) we get
2 L = 2 3 − 1 1
∴ L = 6