Some people claim that 0 0 = 1 . What is
x → 0 + lim x ln x 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.
I've always been told that 0^0 was undefined not 1
Log in to reply
The limit may exist depending on the relative speed at which the base changes and the exponent changes. 0^0 itself actually has an indeterminate form, so there are infinitely many numbers that can equal 0^0. Here is a short proof.
0 = 0^1 = 0^(1+0) = 0^1 * 0^0 = 0*0^0 Infinitely many solutions.
Here is also an analogy, sin(x)/x. Sin(0)/0 does not exist but the limit exists because their relative speed approaches the same speed as x->0.
This is fundamentally incorrect. If you want to evaluate 0 0 using the limit, you must consider lim x → 0 ( x x ) . And this limit is 1.
You cannot use for your purpose x 1 / lo g ( x ) , which is indeed = e , but for all x , and not just for x → 0 .
The reason why you are getting here seemingly two different answers for 0 0 is that, for x → 0 , the power index 1 / lo g ( x ) approaches 0 logarithmically , and not linearly (as it really should be doing, were it to provide a valid representation of x x ).
this is just the easiest way to do it ... smart!
Did the same way.
If i use the lim f (x)^g (x)=e^lim (f (x)-1).g (x) so what will be the answer?
It makes me more curious.
Assuming that the limit exists, let,
L = x → 0 lim x lo g x 1
Taking log on both sides,
lo g L = lo g ( x → 0 lim x lo g x 1 )
Taking the log inside the limit,
lo g L = x → 0 lim lo g x lo g x 1
Using the fact that lo g a b = b lo g a , we get,
lo g L = x → 0 lim lo g x 1 × lo g x
lo g L = 1
L = e
⇒ x → 0 lim x lo g x 1 = e
Ah, I added in x → 0 + so that we can actually take logs without worrying about the domain.
There is no need to assume that the limit exists. There is a much simpler explanation.
Can you provide further information on how you got between steps? I can see some of the steps but I don't understand how you got from the 2nd line to the third, for example.
Log in to reply
I cannot prove this to you, but apparently, you can the log inside the limit. Thats what I did there.
Log in to reply
Yes, can you you please add what you do to get between every non-trivial step in your solution? Thanks.
really good solution..
Nice expression.
Nice explanation
Nice calculation .. but it should be ln or 'e' base log..
For your kind information.... The power of X is 1/ln x... And there is a huge difference between log and ln
Log in to reply
And for your kind information, log x doesn't always mean that the base is 10. Even though I haven't explicitly specified the base, in the 3rd last line, its clear that I have used the base of log as "e" and not 10.
ln x is just a shorthand notation for log x with a base "e" while log x is a logarithm of x with an unspecified base.
And that's what a solution should look like , great bro .. Thank you alot !!! 👍🔥🔥
There is a very easy solution, that doesn't require a deep understanding of limits.
Hint: Simplify the expression x lo g x 1 BEFORE considering limits.
Hint: If you don't know what to do, draw a graph.
Thnxx sir its very easyy...... just needs simplification and its done..... Coool Sum..... Nice .
oh yes. I got it ! thank you.
had some inspiration from a previous question:
lim x → 0 + x ln x 1
let x = e u ⟶ u = ln x
now redefine the limit in terms of our substitution:
lim u → − ∞ ( e u ) u 1 = lim u → − ∞ e u u = lim u → − ∞ e 1 = e
qed
lim x → 0 + x ln x 1 = lim x → 0 + e ln ( x ln x 1 ) = lim x → 0 + e ln x 1 ln x = e
x ln x 1 = L So... ( x ln x 1 ) ln x = L ln x x = L ln x Take the ln of both sides... ln x = ln ( L ln x ) Using lo g laws... ln x = ln x ∗ ln L ln x − ln x ∗ ln L = 0 Factor out a ln x . . . ln x ( 1 − ln L ) = 0 So either ln x = 0 , or ln L = 1 , which means either x = 1 , or L = e . Since x → 0 + , then x = 1 . Therefore, L = e .
I understand I am just level 2 in calculus as per the grading of this site; however, I am of the strong conviction that the answer to this problem is not e . First of all we are being tricked by the author of the problem to believe that since: lim x → 0 x = 0 and that l i m x → 0 l n x 1 = 0 therefore the limit of: x l n x 1 as x → 0 = 0 0 . If this was the case, then there are more than one way to show that 0 0 is the same as the limit of different other functions, which will be wrong and misleading; an example of such functions is: x x . According to the author of the problem under question, since: lim x → 0 x = 0 therefore it means the limit of x x = 0 0 . By using any of the many methods in the comments under this question one may be able to find out that the limit as x → 0 of x x is equal to e 0 = 1 . How?
L = lim x → 0 x x
⇒ l n L = l n [ lim x → 0 x x ]
using the fact that ln a b = b ln a and also that ln [ lim ] = lim [ ln ] - ⇒ l n L = lim x → 0 x ln x
x l n x is the same as: x 1 l n x direct substitution of x = 0 in the limit will yield 0 0 which means we can use L'Hopital's Rule to easily evaluate the limit. This gives us:
l n L = lim x → 0 ( − x ) = 0
⇒ L = e 0 = 1
CONCLUSION There are many functions which limits when evaluated are some real values or integers but we can make their limit as x approaches zero appear like 0 0 by wrongly taking their limits in desired parts. There are two examples we have just seen: x x and x l n x 1 . Another example could be : l n x 1 x . All these functions have distinct or perhaps coincidentally the same limits as x approaches zero from the right; it is therefore misleading to conclude that since we can in parts make the limits resemble 0 0 then it means that 0 0 = these different limits.
0 0 IS NOT EQUAL TO e !!!
0^0 can surely have any value you like. 0 to any power is always 0; any number to the power 0 is always 1. Graphs will show these values are met as limits as x approaches 0. If you draw a graph it is plain that if y=x^x then y tends to zero as x tends to zero. So it is not implicitly clear that 0^0 should not equal e in the stated case.
The answer is actually e , because for all positive values of x , we have x lo g x 1 = e .
For your approach, we have L = lim x lo g x 1 , and taking logs we (hope that ) lo g L = lim lo g x lo g x 1 = lim 1 = 1 . Hence, L = e 1 = e . Check your working again, and you will see that the error arose from lo g x lo g x 1 = x lo g x .
Of course, the "hope that" step needs to be justified, as we are swapping the order of operations of 2 functions.
Log in to reply
My question is: Is x l o g x 1 a better representation of 0 0 than is x x ?
Log in to reply
Nope, neither is a "good" representation of 0 0 . The point of this question is to explain why the form is considered indeterminante, because the limiting value depends heavily on the path that is chosen. For polynomial paths, the limit is 1. But for other cases, we could get different answers.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Exactly, this is what I am trying to point out if you read my very first comment carefully. Thank you very much anyway for your patience in replying to my comments, I really do appreciate it. :)
@Calvin Lin – Does it mean that l i m x → 0 0 0 doesnot exist because we are getting different answers by using different functions
Log in to reply
@A Former Brilliant Member – Essentially yes. For many sequences which do not converge nicely, the path of convergence matters. A good example is talking about lim ( 0 , 0 ) y x , which most people are tempted to say is equal to 1. However, it greatly depends on which path you take, and we could make this limit any value that we want.
just take a subsequence of points x n = e − n ,as n → ∞ , x n → 0 , so x 1 / l n ( x ) becomes ( e − n ) 1 / l n ( e − n ) = ( e − n ) − 1 / n , which is e − 1 ∗ − 1 = e 1 = e
The function is a constant, which was not obvious to me. Using the inverse functions of natural log and exponential you have
x^ l n ( x ) 1 = e^[ ln( x^ l n ( x ) 1 ) ] = e^[ l n ( x ) 1 *ln(x) ] = e^1
x^ l n ( x ) 1 = e, for x>0
So the right-hand limit is e.
x^y can be written as exp(y log x ).Hence giving us the answer e..
Let lo g x = z then x = e z ; x → 0 + ⟹ z → − ∞ . The limit becomes z → − ∞ lim ( e z ) z 1 = z → − ∞ lim e = e □
x^(1/lnx) is identically equal to e.
lim(e) as x--->o+ = e
sorry, I now see the same solution below
Let y = ln x ; then x = e y .
Hence lim x → 0 + x ln x 1 = lim e y → 0 + e y y 1 = lim e y → 0 + e which doesn't depend on y .
In other words, x ln x 1 is a constant function which is always equal to e .
First we need to assume l n ( x ) = y and then we can say that x = e y and and then the expression becomes e [ y 1 / y ] which is e^y * 1/y which is e
This one was a fairly easy question Lets take y=lim x tends to 0+ (x^(1/lnx) now take ln on both sides we get lny=(1/lnx×lnx) so ln(y) will tend to 1 hence y will tend to e^1 i.e. e.............
NOTE:
x ln ( x ) 1 = e ln ( x ) ln ( x )
i think it's the same as 1^infinity 0^0 is defined to be 1, however, it's different from lim (f(n)^g(n)) , n -> infinity where f(n) & g(n) approaches 0 i think the definition comes from polynomials like P(X) = X^2 + 3 it's actually P(X) = X^2 + 3X^0 and P(0) = 3 = 3 0^0 hence the definition! i also think that 1^infinity is 1 and it's also different from some limit but defining such thing doesn't make sense as infinity is not a number
Can we use the following logic? Let y=limx->0 x^{ l o g x 1 } taking log on both sides log y= lim x->0 l o g x l o g x => log y=lim x->0 (1) => y=e^{1}
Let y=1/logx, then x=e^(1/y),
As x->0+, y->0-,
Now x^(1/logx)=e,
lim x^(1/logx)[when x->0+]
=lim e [when y->0-]
=e.
Well, this is e , since lo g x 1 / lo g x = lo g x 1 lo g x = 1 . for all x > 0 . But that does not mean in any way that ( x , y ) → 0 lim x y = 0 0 . 0 0 can be (And in fact is) defined as an algebraic result. If we define 0 0 = 1 , the function f ( x , y ) = x y wouldn't be continuous in ( 0 , 0 ) so applying limits and saying ( x , y ) → 0 lim x y = 0 0 is not valid.
In Analysis it's very problematic to define 0 0 , since we should let it be an exception to many rules. But in any way, it's necessary to define it as 1, for example, to evaluate things as: p ( x ) = i = 0 ∑ n a i x i in 0 . I mean, your standard polynomial.
Or even in one of the definitions of e x = i = 0 ∑ ∞ i ! x i we know that e 0 = 1 , and to do that we must have 0 0 = 1 , since the first term of the series would be 0 ! 0 0 .
Rewrite as
e lim x → 0 + ( ln x ( l n x 1 ) )
then bring down the power on the x to the front of the natural log using the power rule, and this gives...
e lim x → 0 + ( l n x 1 ∗ ( ln x ) )
ln(x) statements cancel out, leaving us with
e lim x → 0 + ( 1 )
or simply, e
(ln stands for natural log)
lim x^{\frac{1}{logx}} = e^{\frac{1}{logx}] \ times (1-x) taking x=x - 1 so lim \frac{logx}{x - 1} therefore e^{1}
By definition, if x > 0 then x 1 / lo g x = exp ( lo g x 1 ⋅ lo g x ) = exp ( 1 ) = e . Since the function x 1 / lo g x is identically equal to e for all x > 0 , the limit must be e .
just open up: https://www.geogebra.org/calculator , and type the function. :P
Should remember the equation: x=e^lnx
So x^1/lnx= e^ln(x^1/lnx)
For log. properties ln (x^x ) = x lnx so
ln(x^1/lnx)= lnx/lnx ==> e^ln(x^1/lnx)=e
For any values of x
x ln x 1 is a constant function well defined in domain R + . This value is e in fact
x ln x 1 = e ln ( x ln x 1 ) = e ln x 1 ⋅ ln x = e ln x ln x = e 1 = e .
So, for every k ∈ R + ∪ { 0 } we have
x → t o k lim x ln x 1 = x → k lim e = e .
I believe this can be done without the limits too (as the l n x cancel out on the penultimate line):
x → 0 lim x l n x 1 = x → 0 lim e ( l n x l n x 1 )
= x → 0 lim e l n x 1 × l n x
= x → 0 lim e l n x l n x
= e
x → 0 + lim x ln x 1 = x → 0 + lim ( e ln x ) ln x 1 = x → 0 + lim e 1 = e ln x and ln x 1 are defined for x > 0 (technically excluding 1 for ln x 1 though that's unimportant for the limit) so we can multiply the exponents with no worries.
given the equation 0/0=x whatever value we use as x will satisfy the equation.
Let y= x^(1/log x). Thus, logy =1 Thus, limit(log y,x,0) = limit(1,x,0). By applying composite function theorem, log(limit(y,x,0) = 1. Thus, raising both terms of the equation to the power of e, we get limit(y,x,0) = e. Thus, limit(x^1/(log x) ,x,0) =e.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Remember the fact that lo g b k 1 = lo g k b . Simplifying the expression, x lo g x 1 = x lo g x e = e .
All that is left to see is that the limit does in fact exist as x approaches 0 from the right. Observing small values of x such as 0.0001, we see that 0 . 0 0 0 1 lo g 0 . 0 0 0 1 1 indeed exist.
@Calvin Lin I believe this is what you were looking for?