Give a polynomial f(x) with the property that both x→∞limf(x) and x→−∞limf(x) are (finite) real numbers.
Hint+
It might not look like a traditional polynomial.
Answer+
There are many answers: any constant polynomial has this property. One answer is f(x)=1.
Full solution+
Any polynomial of degree one or higher will go to ∞ or −∞ as x goes to ∞. So, we need a polynomial of degree 0–that is, f(x) is a constant. One possible answer is f(x)=1.
You can think about the behaviour of this function by remembering how you first learned to describe exponentiation.
Answer+
∞
Full solution+
As x gets larger and larger, 2x grows without bound. (For integer values of x, you can imagine multiplying 2 by itself more and more times.) So, x→∞lim2x=∞.
Write X=−x. As x becomes more and more negative,
X becomes more and more positive. From Question 4,
we know that 2X grows without bound as X gets
larger and larger. Since 2x=2−(−x)=2−X=2X1,
as we let x become a huge negative number, we are in
effect dividing by a huge positive number; hence
x→−∞lim2x=0.
A more formulaic way to describe the above is this:
$\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow-\infty} 2^x
= \lim\limits_{X\rightarrow\infty} 2^{-X}
= \lim\limits_{X\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{2^X}
=0$.
There is no single number that cosx approaches as x becomes more and more strongly negative: as x grows in the negative direction, the function oscillates between −1 and +1, never settling close to one particular number. So, this limit does not exist.
Solution 2
Our other standard trick is to factor out the highest power of x in the denominator: x4. We just have to be a little careful with the square root. Since we are taking the limit as x goes to positive infinity, we have positive x-values, so x2=x and x8=x4.
Multiply and divide by the conjugate,
x2+5x+x2−x.
Answer+
3
Full solution+
First, a note about asyptotics. It's tempting (but wrong!) to write the following:
(wrong)x2+5x−x2−x≈x2−x2=0.
Recall Example 1.1.5 in the text for a concrete example: subtracting two expressions that are asymptotically the same doesn't necessarily give you an expression tending to 0.
More generally, here's the source of a common mistake. By Theorem 2.1.15,
if x→alimf(x)=F and x→alimg(x)=G, andF and G are both real numbers, then you can conclude that x→alim[f(x)−g(x)]=F−G. However, if F and G are not real numbers (for example, if they're both infinite), the theorem does not apply.
Now that we know how not to solve this question, let's actually solve it!
We have two terms, each getting extremely large. It's unclear at first what happens when we subtract them. To get this equation into another form, we multiply and divide by the conjugate,
x2+5x+x2−x.
Divide both the numerator and the denominator by the highest
power of x that is in the denominator.
Remember that is defined to be the positive square root.
Consequently, if x<0, then x2, which
is positive, is not the same as x, which is negative.
Answer+
−43
Full solution+
Note that for large negative x, the first term in the denominator
4x2+x≈4x2=∣2x∣=−2xnot+2x. A good way to
avoid incorrectly computing x2 when x is negative is to define
y=−x and express everything in terms of y. That's what we'll do.
x→−∞lim4x2+x−2x3x=y→+∞lim4y2−y+2y−3y=y→+∞limy4−y1+2y−3y=y→+∞lim4−y1+2−3=4−0+2−3since 1/y→0 as y→+∞=−43
Remark: see Example 1.1.5 in the text for a concrete example of why subtracting two expressions that are asymptotically the same doesn't necessarily give you an expression tending to 0.
Divide both the numerator and the denominator by x
(which is the largest power of x in the denominator).
In the numerator, move the resulting factor of 1/x inside
the two roots. Be careful about the signs when you do so.
Even and odd roots behave differently– see Question 10.
Answer+
1
Full solution+
Solution 1
We want to factor out x, the highest power in the denominator. Since our limit only sees negative values of x, we must remember that 4x4=∣x∣=−x, although 3x3=x.
Solution 2
Alternately, we can use the transformation x→−∞limf(x)=x→∞limf(−x). Then we only look at positive values of x, so roots behave nicely: 4x4=∣x∣=x.
Use asymptotics, or divide both the numerator and the denominator by the highest
power of x that is in the denominator.
Answer+
0
Full solution+
Solution 1
For large values of x, the numerator behaves asymptotically like 5x2, while the denominator
behaves like 3x3. Larger exponents dominate when x is large, so the denominator grows much, much faster than the numerator, so the limit is 0.
Solution 2
We have, after dividing both numerator and denominator by x3 (which is the
highest power of the denominator) that:
Remark: see Example 1.1.5 in the text for a concrete example of why subtracting two expressions that are asymptotically the same doesn't necessarily give you an expression tending to 0. That's why we can't assume the denominator approaches 0.
Divide both the numerator and the denominator by the highest
power of x that is in the denominator.
When is x=x, and when is x=−x?
Answer+
−35
Full solution+
Solution 1
We divide both the numerator and the denominator by the
highest power of x in the denominator, which is x.
Since x<0, we have x2=∣x∣=−x,
so that
x4x2+15=−x24x2+15=−x24x2+15=−4+x215.
Since 1/x→0 and also 1/x2→0 as x→−∞, we conclude that
Remark: see Example 1.1.5 in the text for a concrete example of why subtracting two expressions that are asymptotically the same doesn't necessarily give you an expression tending to 0.
Consider what happens to the function as a becomes very, very small. You shouldn't need to do much calculation.
Answer+
a→0+lima−1a2−a1=∞
Full solution+
Solution 1:
When a approaches 0 from the right, the numerator approaches negative infinity, and the denominator approaches −1. So, a→0+lima−1a2−a1=∞.
More precisely, using Theorem 2.1.38:
Also,So, using Theorem(2.1.38),Furthermore,So, using our theorem,a→0+lima1=+∞a→0+lima2=0a→0+lima2−a1=−∞a→0+lima−1=−1a→0+lima−1a2−a1=∞
Solution 2:
Since a=0 is not in the domain of our function, a reasonable impulse is to simplify.
Give a rational function f(x) with the properties that x→∞limf(x)=x→−∞limf(x), and both limits are (finite) real numbers.
Hint+
This is a bit of a trick question.
Consider what happens to a rational function as
x→±∞ in each of these three cases:
the degree of the numerator is smaller than the degree of
the denominator,
the degree of the numerator is the same as the degree of
the denominator, and
the degree of the numerator is larger than the degree of
the denominator.
Answer+
No such rational function exists.
Full solution+
First, we need a rational function whose limit at infinity is a real number. This means that the degree of the bottom is greater than or equal to the degree of the top. There are two cases: the denominator has higher degree than the numerator, or the denominator has the same degree as the numerator.
If the denominator has higher degree than the numerator, then x→∞limf(x)=x→−∞limf(x)=0, so the limits are equal–not what we're looking for.
If the denominator has the same degree as the numerator, then the limit as x goes to ±∞ is the ratio of the leading terms: again, the limits are equal. So no rational function exists as described.
Suppose the concentration of a substance in your body t hours after injection is given by some formula c(t), and t→∞limc(t)=0. What kind of substance might have been injected?
Hint+
We tend to conflate “infinity" with “some really large number."
Answer+
This is the amount of the substance that will linger long-term. Since it's nonzero, the substance would be something that would stay in your body. Something like “tattoo ink" is a reasonable answer, while “penicillin" is not.
Full solution+
The amount of the substance that will linger long-term is some positive number–the substance will stick around. One example of a substance that does this is the ink in a tattoo. (If the injection was of medicine, probably it will be metabolized, and t→∞limc(t)=0.)
Remark: it actually doesn't make much sense to let t go to infinity: after a few million hours, you won't even have a body, so what is c(t) measuring? Often when we use formulas in the real world, there is an understanding that they are only good for some fixed range. We often use the limit as t goes to infinity as a stand-in for the function's long-term behaviour.