h → 0 lim h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5
The expansions of ( 1 + h ) 5 and ( 1 − h ) 5 are very long. Can we find a way to evaluate the limit above without expanding and simplifying the expression? If yes, what is the value of this limit?
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.
Yes, if the expansion of the expression becomes rather tedious, it would suggest that we should find other approaches. Note that f ′ ( x ) = h → 0 lim h ( a + b ) f ( x + a h ) − f ( x + b h ) is also true for constants a and b satisfying a + b = 0 .
Bonus question : For the sake of variety, can you think of another approach that doesn't use Derivative by First Principle?
I hate the L'Hopital's Rule a bit. So, I applied the following:
h → 0 lim h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5
= 2 × h → 0 lim 2 h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5
= 2 × h → 0 lim 1 + h − 1 + h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5
= 2 × h → 0 lim ( 1 + h ) − ( 1 − h ) ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5
Observe that h → 0 ⟹ 1 + h → 1 and − h → 0 ⟹ 1 − h → 1 . Hence, we have 1 + h → 1 − h . Now our limit advances to:
= 2 × ( 1 + h ) → ( 1 − h ) lim ( 1 + h ) − ( 1 − h ) ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5
Recall that x → a lim x − a x n − a n = n a n − 1 (You can easily prove it by bashing a little with the binomial theorem). Applying this law here with x = 1 + h and a = 1 − h , our limit evolves to:
= 2 × 5 ( 1 − h ) 4
Recall that h was approaching 0 . Hence substituting it in the limit our answer comes 1 0 .
Yup! This is the detailed explanation for the L Hopital approach! Thank youuu
Log in to reply
But I didn't use the L'Hopital's Rule. I've said that I've a certain hatred towards it. It does not let us nurture our algebraic skills.
Log in to reply
Oh sorry, I misread your comment.
By the way, I don't think (1+h) -> (1-h) is a correct terminology to use. Have you seen this somewhere else before?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Well, then see this:
Since h → 0 ,
Then, ⟹ 2 h → 2 × 0 ⟹ 2 h → 0
Subsequently, ⟹ h + h → 0 ⟹ h → − h
Finally, we have ⟹ 1 + h → 1 − h
And yes, I've seen this step in many math textbooks.
Log in to reply
@Arkajyoti Banerjee – Well the problem is, if we have h 2 → 3 , does it mean that h → 3 and/or h → − 3 ?
Just out of curiousity: What math textbooks have you seen this in?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Obviously it would approach both. See this:
While x 2 is approaching 3 , x is approaching both 3 and − 3 .
Well, I don't recall in which textbooks I've noticed it, but I do remember one of the statements:
"If x → 0 , then sin x → sin 0 ⟹ sin x → 0 . Combining these two, we can assert that sin x → x ."
When I saw it for the first time, I was bewildered a bit. Then I thought about it practically and experimented with some graphs. Then I understood that these transformations must make sense, what do you say?
Log in to reply
@Arkajyoti Banerjee – No, that's not correct. if x>0+ or if x>0-, then the limit may turn out to be different.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Well, but it is correct when LHL=RHL.
This limit satisfies LHL=RHL, so I applied this.
Since it's a 0/0 form:
We can use L'Hopital Rule... By differentiating the numerator and putting h=0, numerator =10 and denominator =1
HENCE ANSWER = 10
Yup. That's the standard approach. For the sake of variety, can you think of another approach?
Log in to reply
The Above expression is similar to this form : f ′ ( x ) = h → 0 lim h f ( x + h ) − f ( x ) Equation 1 f ′ ( x ) = h → 0 lim − h f ( x − h ) − f ( x ) Equation 2 Add the two equations to get : 2 f ′ ( x ) = h → 0 lim h f ( x + h ) − f ( x − h ) The question is basically asking the derivative of 2 x 5 at x = 1 Which is equal to 1 0
A different solution from First Principles is to factor the expression, using the fact that x 5 − y 5 = ( x − y ) ( x 4 + x 3 y + x 2 y 2 + x y 3 + y 4 ) h → 0 lim h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5 (cancel monomial $h$ on top and bottom, & then substitute zero for $h$) = h → 0 lim h [ ( 1 + h ) − ( 1 − h ) ] [ ( 1 + h ) 4 + ( 1 + h ) 3 ( 1 − h ) + . . . + ( 1 − h ) 4 ] = h → 0 lim h 2 h [ ( 1 + h ) 4 + . . . ] = 2 [ 1 4 + 1 3 × 1 + 1 2 × 1 2 + 1 × 1 3 + 1 4 ] = 2 × 5 = 1 0
Correcttttttttt!!!
the best method to do this would be using binomial theorm as h<<<1 ( as h-> 0) it would be 1-5h
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Derivative by First Principle
As pointed out by Sambhrant Sachan in the solution discussion, we can evaluate this limit by applying the derivatives by first principle . That is, f ′ ( x ) = h → 0 lim h f ( x + h ) − f ( x ) .
Let f ( x ) = x 5 , then f ( x + h ) = ( x + h ) 5 and f ( x − h ) = ( x − h ) 5 . So, f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 − h ) = ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5 .
We have
h → 0 lim h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5 = = = h → 0 lim h f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 − h ) h → 0 lim h ( f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 ) ) − ( f ( 1 − h ) − f ( 1 ) ) h → 0 lim h f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 ) − h → 0 lim h f ( 1 − h ) − f ( 1 )
For the second limit, we can let h = − j , then h → 0 lim h f ( 1 − h ) − f ( 1 ) = − j → 0 lim j f ( 1 + j ) − f ( 1 ) .
And we can finish where we left off,
h → 0 lim h ( 1 + h ) 5 − ( 1 − h ) 5 = = = = h → 0 lim h f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 ) + j → 0 lim j f ( 1 + j ) − f ( 1 ) h → 0 lim h f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 ) + h → 0 lim h f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 ) 2 h → 0 lim h f ( 1 + h ) − f ( 1 ) 2 f ′ ( 1 ) = 2 ( d x d x 5 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ x = 1 ) = 2 ⋅ 5 ⋅ ( 1 ) 4 = 1 0 .