Ask your own question, for FREE!
Mathematics 16 Online
OpenStudy (turingtest):

\[\lim_{x\to\infty}x=?\]

OpenStudy (anonymous):

What does that mean?

OpenStudy (turingtest):

are we allowed to say this limit Does not exist? or is that an incorrect statement?

OpenStudy (turingtest):

must we say the limit exists, and it is \(+\infty\) ?

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Sorry i'm not that advanced in math yet

OpenStudy (turingtest):

@FoolForMath @JamesJ @Zarkon @Mr.Math please clear up a technicality @Freckles here is our question

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@TuringTest what is your question?

OpenStudy (freckles):

The question is can you interpret the limit being infinity as the limit does not exist?

OpenStudy (freckles):

And I'm not saying if the limit does not exist, then the limit is infinity Remember the logic stuff we learned in Discrete math p->q does not imply q->p

OpenStudy (freckles):

I'm saying if the limit is infinity, then the limit does not exist

OpenStudy (turingtest):

I think the limit does exist, and it is \(=\infty\) freckles says that you can also say the limit does not exist because \(\infty\) is not a number I just want to get some more input

OpenStudy (anonymous):

i posted this in the other thread, but since we moved here here we go The limit of f(x) as x approaches a is L if and only if, given e > 0, there exists d > 0 such that 0 < |x - a| < d implies that |f(x) - L| < e can we apply this as a formal definition?

OpenStudy (turingtest):

that would probably help clear up the matter if we can do it right ^

OpenStudy (freckles):

No amistre64 is not allowed to talk. :p

OpenStudy (anonymous):

if we do accept that as our definition i see a potential problem: |f(x) - L| < e so we want |f(x) - infinity| < e which is a bit weird

OpenStudy (amistre64):

there are more than 1 cardinality of infinity; so i believe its DNE since it cannot have a definitive value

OpenStudy (turingtest):

hm... good point

OpenStudy (amistre64):

does the limit settle to infinity? if so, which infinity are we discussing :)

OpenStudy (turingtest):

but still... I am not completely convinced (perhaps I never will be) this seems to undermine the difference between things like\[\lim_{x\to\infty}\sin x\]and the one I posted...

OpenStudy (amistre64):

sin(x) doesnt settle to anything; much less infinity

OpenStudy (amistre64):

if we cant determine the limit that it settles down to; it is undefined

OpenStudy (experimentx):

this is getting interesting

OpenStudy (freckles):

I think DNE can be used whenever the function is oscillating, left limit does not equal right limit, the limit is infinity

OpenStudy (amistre64):

in sin(x) we have a bound; but in x we are boundless is the only diff i see

OpenStudy (turingtest):

clearly lim sinx to infty DNE oh... Zarkon came online, I beet he can help!

OpenStudy (amistre64):

sin(x) doesnt need to act like x(x) does it?

OpenStudy (turingtest):

right, so why can we say they both DNE ? that seems to vague to me...

OpenStudy (amistre64):

becasue neither one of them has a point that they settle down to

OpenStudy (zarkon):

the limit does not exist. you are not using the correct formal definition of a limit (as \(x\to\infty\))

OpenStudy (zarkon):

you can say that the limit diverges to infinity

OpenStudy (turingtest):

hm... so "blah, blah diverges to +/- infty" implies that the limit also DNE ?

OpenStudy (zarkon):

for a limit to converge it has to converge to a number...infinity is not a number

OpenStudy (turingtest):

Freckles wins! I concede, happy to have learned something :)

OpenStudy (experimentx):

It seems, 0 < |x - a| < d implies that |f(x) - L| < e |x - infinity| < d <----- looks like this 'd' buddy cannot be defined exactly should imply |f(x) - infinity| < e <---- and same goes to 'e' buddy

OpenStudy (anonymous):

I would say that the limit of \(f(x)=x\) as x tends to infinity is \(+\infty\) and save the DNE (does not exist) for those cases where left hand limit \(\neq \) right hand limit.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

Precisely where there is a hole in the graph or there is no graph at all.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

To me undefined and infinity are two different things.

OpenStudy (anonymous):

There is a nice discussion on this in M.SE: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/36289/

OpenStudy (turingtest):

"To me undefined and infinity are two different things." yes, that's how I felt as well, but apparently if the limit tends to infinity it technically does not exist. I guess just saying that the limit is infinity is a more specific way, or at least a reason for, stating that the limit DNE

OpenStudy (turingtest):

@FoolForMath wow, that's a very thorough answer from Qiaochu, and actually helped me understand ideas like rings and fields

OpenStudy (anonymous):

@TuringTest: Yes, the limit tends to infinity is technically does not exist, I see people often use thee two interchangeably, it's fine because technically \( ∞∉\mathbb{R}\). And I agree, that's a dainty answer :)

Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!
Can't find your answer? Make a FREE account and ask your own questions, OR help others and earn volunteer hours!

Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!