Nathan Wakefield, Christine Kelley, Marla Williams, Michelle Haver, Lawrence Seminario-Romero, Robert Huben, Aurora Marks, Stephanie Prahl, Based upon Active Calculus by Matthew Boelkins
Because differential calculus is based on the definition of the derivative, and the definition of the derivative involves a limit, there is a sense in which all of calculus rests on limits. Limits in which separately evaluating the numerator and denominator at the limit point results in the fraction are called indeterminate form. When we come across a limit like this, we have some work to do. Remember, saying that a limit has an indeterminate form only means that we donβt yet know its value and have more work to do: indeed, limits of the form can take on any value.
We have learned many techniques for evaluating the limits that arise from applying the definition of the derivative, including a large number of shortcut rules that seem to bypass the use of limits entirely. In this section, we will explore how to use derivatives to evaluate certain limits that we previously could not compute.
Example3.57.
Let be the function given by .
Evaluate and at . Can you evaluate by just plugging into the quotient?
Next we will investigate the behavior of both the numerator and denominator of near the point where . Let and . Find the local linearizations of and at , and call these functions and , respectively.
Explain why for near .
Using your work from (b), evaluate
.
What do you think your result tells us about ?
Investigate the function graphically and numerically near . What do you think is the value of ?
Hint.
Is continuous at ? Why (not)?
Remember that the local linearization of a function at a point is just the tangent line to the function at that point.
What can you say about the relationship between and near ?
Based on (c), how should compare to ?
You can also investigate algebraically by factoring the numerator and denominator (with a common factor of ).
Answer.
. has indeterminate form .
;.
Near , we have and . Hence, near ,.
.
.
Solution.
Since , we have . Likewise, , so . As both and , we can not say β,β because the right side of this equation is not a well-defined number. If only the denominator were , we could say the limit was infinite; if only the numerator were , we could say the limit was also . Instead, we are left with an indeterminate form of , which could be zero or infinite or anywhere in between.
Recall that the local linearization of a function at a point is given by the formula
.
Since and , then and
.
Since and , then and
.
and are the tangent line approximations for and , respectively, near the point . Because and are each differentiable and hence locally linear, this means for near , and for near . Thus for values of that are close to and are not roots of , we can approximate the quotient by . Finally, since the only roots of are , we can thus say: for near ,
.
Notice that
.
By our argument in (c), we know near . It should thus be the case that .
Looking at a graph of , we note that there is a hole at , implying that is a removable discontinuity, and . With a numerical approach, we see that ,,, and . These values again suggest that . Finally, we note that is a rational function and that is a root of both its numerator and its denominator. It follows that is a factor of both the numerator and denominator, and in fact
.
Hence, we can actually compute algebraically (even though it wasnβt clear before that we could), and thus confirm that
The idea demonstrated in Example 3.57 β that we can evaluate an indeterminate limit of the form by replacing each of the numerator and denominator with their local linearizations at the point of interest β can be generalized in a way that enables us to evaluate a wide range of limits. Given a function that can be written as a quotient , where and are both differentiable at and for which , we would like to evaluate the indeterminate limit given by . Below, Figure 3.58 illustrates this situation.
Figure3.58.At left, the graphs of and near the value , along with their tangent line approximations and at . At right, we zoom in on the point and the four graphs.
In this figure, we see that both and have an -intercept at . Their respective tangent line approximations and at are also shown in the figure. We can take advantage of the fact that a differentiable function and its tangent line approximation become indistinguishable as approaches .
First, letβs recall that the local linearizations of and at are, respectively, and . Because is getting arbitrarily close to when we take the limit, we can replace with and replace with , and thus we observe that
Next, we remember that both and , which is precisely what makes the original limit indeterminate. Substituting these values for and in the limit above, we now have
In practice, we typically work with a slightly more general version of LβHopitalβs Rule, which states that (under the identical assumptions as the boxed rule above and the extra assumption that is continuous at )
provided the righthand limit exists. This form reflects the basic idea of LβHopitalβs Rule: if produces an indeterminate limit of form as tends to , that limit is equivalent to the limit of the quotient of the two functionsβ derivatives, .
As was the case here, by replacing the numerator and denominator with their respective derivatives, we often replace an indeterminate limit with one whose value we can easily determine.
Example3.59.
Evaluate each of the following limits. If you use LβHopitalβs Rule, indicate where it was used, and be certain its hypotheses are met before you apply it.
Hint.
Remember that .
Note that this limit has approaching rather than going to .
Observe that tends to as approaches .
If necessary, LβHopitalβs Rule can be applied more than once.
Answer.
.
.
.
.
Solution.
As tends to , we see that approaches , thus this limit has an indeterminate form. By LβHopitalβs Rule, we have
.
As this limit is no longer indeterminate, we may simply allow to go to , and thus we find that
.
Observe that
.
This limit is not indeterminate because the function is continuous at .
Since goes to and goes to as approaches , this limit is indeterminate with form . Hence, by LβHopitalβs Rule,
.
The updated limit is not indeterminate, so we allow to approach and find
.
Since the given limit is indeterminate of form , by LβHopitalβs Rule we have
.
Now, as nears , we see that approaches and tends to , which makes the latest limit also indeterminate in form . Applying LβHopitalβs Rule a second time, we now have
.
In the newest limit, we note that tends to but tends to as approaches , so the numerator is tending to 0 while the denominator is approaching . Thus, the value of the limit is determined to be
While LβHopitalβs Rule can be applied in an entirely algebraic way, it is important to remember that the justification of the rule is graphical: the main idea is that the slopes of the tangent lines to and at determine the value of the limit of as tends to . We see this in Figure 3.60 below, where we can see from the grid that and ,β48β
This is assuming that the grid has a scale, which is not clear from the diagram. In fact, as long as the scales on the two axes in Figure 3.60 are the same (but not necessarily having one unit per box), then the ratio of and will be as stated below. In general though, it is always important to be sure of the scale of a graph before assuming that βof course itβs a grid,β because that will not always be the case.
Itβs not the fact that and both approach zero that matters most, but rather the rate at which each approaches zero that determines the value of the limit. This is a good way to remember what LβHopitalβs Rule says: if , the the limit of as approaches is given by the ratio of the slopes of and at .
Example3.61.
In this example, we reason graphically from the following figure to evaluate limits of ratios of functions about which some information is known.
Figure3.62.Three graphs referenced in the questions of Example 3.61.
Use the left-hand graph to determine the values of ,,, and . Then, evaluate .
Use the middle graph to find ,,, and . Then, determine the value of .
Assume that and are functions whose for which and Use the right-hand graph to compute ,,,. Explain why you cannot determine the exact value of without further information being provided, but that you can determine the sign of . In addition, state what the sign of the limit will be, with justification.
Hint.
Donβt forget that measures the slope of the tangent line to at the point .
Do the functions and meet the criteria of LβHopitalβs Rule?
Remember that LβHopitalβs Rule can be applied more than once to a particular limit.
Answer.
.
.
.
Solution.
From the given graph, we observe that ,,, and . By LβHopitalβs Rule,
.
The given graph tells us that ,,, and . Note well that the given limit,
,
is not indeterminate, and thus LβHopitalβs Rule does not apply. Rather, since and as , we have that
.
From the third graph, ,,,. By LβHopitalβs Rule,
,
but this limit is still indeterminate, so by LβHopitalβs Rule again,
,
provided that . Since we do not know the values of and , we canβt determine the actual value of the limit, but from the graph it appears that (since is concave up) and that (because is concave down), and therefore
The concept of infinity, denoted , arises naturally in calculus, as it does in much of mathematics. It is important to note from the outset that is a concept, but not a number itself. Indeed, the notion of naturally invokes the idea of limits. Consider, for example, the function , whose graph is pictured in Figure 3.63.
We note that is not in the domain of , so we may naturally wonder what happens as . As , we observe that increases without bound. That is, we can make the value of as large as we like by taking closer and closer (but not equal) to 0, while keeping . This is a good way to think about what infinity represents: a quantity is tending to infinity if there is no single number that the quantity is always less than.
Recall that the statement , means that can make as close to as weβd like by taking sufficiently close (but not equal) to . We now expand this notation and language to include the possibility that either or can be . For instance, for , we now write
In general, the notation means that we can make as large as we like by taking sufficiently close (but not equal) to , and the notation means that we can make as close to as we like by taking sufficiently large. This notation also applies to left- and right-hand limits, and to limits involving . For example, returning to Figure 3.63 and , we can say that
Limits involving infinity identify vertical and horizontal asymptotes of a function. If , then is a vertical asymptote of , while if , then is a horizontal asymptote of . Similar statements can be made using , and with left- and right-hand limits as or .
In precalculus classes, it is common to study the end behavior of certain families of functions, by which we mean the behavior of a function as and as . Here we briefly examine some familiar functions and note the values of several limits involving .
For the natural exponential function , we note that and . For the exponential decay function , these limits are reversed, with and . Turning to the natural logarithm function, we have and . While both and grow without bound as , the exponential function does so much more quickly than the logarithm function does. Weβll soon use limits to quantify what we mean by βquickly.β
the end behavior depends on the sign of and whether the highest power is even or odd. If is even and is positive, then and , as in the plot of in Figure 3.64. If instead is negative, then and . In the situation where is odd, then either and (which occurs when is positive, as in the graph of in Figure 3.64), or and (when is negative).
A function can fail to have a limit as . For example, consider the plot of the sine function at right in Figure 3.64. Because the function continues oscillating between and as , we say that does not exist.
Finally, it is straightforward to analyze the behavior of any rational function as .
Example3.65.
Determine the limit of the function
as .
Note that both as and as . Here we say that has indeterminate form . We can determine the value of this limit through a standard algebraic approach. Multiplying the numerator and denominator each by , we find that
since and as . This shows that the rational function has a horizontal asymptote at . A similar approach can be used to determine the limit of any rational function as .
Here, both and , but there is not an obvious algebraic approach that enables us to find the limitβs value. Fortunately, it turns out that LβHopitalβs Rule extends to cases involving infinity.
(To be technically correct, we need to add the additional hypothesis that on an open interval that contains or in every neighborhood of infinity if is ; this is almost always met in practice.)
This updated limit is still indeterminate and of the form , but it is simpler since has replaced . Hence, we can apply LβHopitalβs Rule again, and find that
Now, since is constant and as , it follows that as , which shows that
.
Example3.66.
Evaluate each of the following limits. If you use LβHopitalβs Rule, indicate where it was used, and be certain its hypotheses are met before you apply it.
Hint.
Remember that as .
Both the numerator and denominator tend to as .
Note that , not .
As ,.
Answer.
.
.
.
.
Solution.
As both numerator and denominator tend to as , by LβHopitalβs Rule followed by some elementary algebra,
.
Because this limit has indeterminate form , LβHopitalβs Rule tells us that
.
The latest limit is indeterminate for the same reason, and a second application of the rule shows
.
Note how each application of the rule produces a simpler numerator and denominator. With one more use of LβHopitalβs Rule, followed by a simple algebraic simplification, we have
.
As , and , thus by LβHopitalβs Rule,
.
Reciprocating, multiplying, and simplifying, it follows that
.
Here, the numerator tends to while the denominator tends to . Note well that this limit is not indeterminate, but rather produces a collection of fractions with large positive numerators and small negative denominators. Hence
.
In particular, we observe that LβHopitalβs Rule is not applicable here.
To evaluate the limit of a quotient of two functions that results in an indeterminate form of , in essence we are asking which function is growing faster without bound. We say that the function dominates the function as provided that
whereas dominates provided that . Finally, if the value of is finite and nonzero, we say that and grow at the same rate. For example, we saw that , so dominates , while , so and grow at the same rate.
The following example is a classic use of LβHopitalβs Rule.
Example3.67.
Evaluate the following limit. If you use LβHopitalβs Rule, indicate where it was used, and be certain its hypotheses are met before you apply it.
Notice that as . So this limit takes the form , which is an indeterminate form.
We need a couple extra steps before we can apply LβHopitalβs Rule. First, letβs set . Note that Then
Therefore, we need to evaluate
As this limit approaches , which is another indeterminate form. We still have not met the conditions to apply LβHopitalβs rule, but are getting closer. We can rewrite the limit in the following way
This limit has the indeterminate form , so we can apply LβHopitalβs Rule at this point:
Other types of forms include ,,,, and . The following examples demonstrate a few of these other forms.
Example3.68.
Evaluate each of the following limits. If you use LβHopitalβs Rule, indicate where it was used, and be certain its hypotheses are met before you apply it.
Hint.
Observe that .
Recall that and .
Observe that .
Answer.
.
.
.
Solution.
In its original form, , is indeterminate of form . Rewriting as , a straightforward application of LβHopitalβs Rule tells us that
.
Since as , we find that
.
In its original form, has the indeterminate form . Rewriting as and as we have
Since both numerator and demoninator approach 0, we can apply LβHopitalβs Rule,
In its original form, has the indeterminate form . We can rewrite using logarithmic and exponential functions as . Thus,
We evaluate to get the indeterminate form . Rewriting again, we have
Since both numerator and denominator approach , we can apply LβHopitalβs Rule,
Derivatives can be used to help us evaluate indeterminate limits of the form through LβHopitalβs Rule, by replacing the functions in the numerator and denominator with their tangent line approximations. In particular, if and and are differentiable at , LβHopitalβs Rule tells us that
.
When we write , this means that is increasing without bound. Thus, means that we can make as close to as we like by choosing to be sufficiently large. Similarly, , means that we can make as large as we like by choosing sufficiently close to .
A version of LβHopitalβs Rule also helps us evaluate indeterminate limits of the form . If and are differentiable and both approach zero or both approach as (where is allowed to be ), then
Let and be differentiable functions about which the following information is known: ,,, and . Let a new function be given by the rule . On the same set of axes, sketch possible graphs of and near , and use the provided information to determine the value of
where ,, and are distinct, arbitrary constants. In addition, state all values of for which is not continuous. Sketch a possible graph of , clearly labeling the values of ,, and .
Consider the function , which is defined for all . Observe that is indeterminate due to its form of . (Think about how we know that for all , while for all , but that neither rule can apply to .)
Let . Explain why .
Next, explain why it is equivalent to write .
Use LβHopitalβs Rule and your work in (b) to compute .