Use l'Hopital's Rule to evaluate lim(x−>1)(x2−2x+1)^(x−1) and identify the indeterminate form
my big confusion is why ln(0)=positive infinity
ln(x->0)
ln(x->0+)
That's not the kind of thing that you solve with l'Hospital's rule. That rule can only be applied to fractions.
But you can solve it with L'hopitals if you take the ln of the inside part
well the ln of the thing you are finding the limit of
Then you get something that you can rewrite, and then do l'hopitals with
That's how 0^0 is solved, yeah. I don't think it's called l'Hospital's rule though. To my knowledge at least.
You do apply l'hopitals in the problem. That particular step is not l'hopitals though
ANYWAYS, why is the limit of ln(x) as x->0+ positive infinity
it's not
According to these solutions I found it is
\[\lim_{x\to 0^{+}}\ln(x)=-\infty\]
Yes
Why
don't believe everything you read.
Wait no
graph ln(x)
I know what ln(x) looks like
|dw:1425775452772:dw|
If you think about the definition of a cusp, one limit goes to infinity, and one goes to negative infinity, even though it does look like both go to one infinity
what are you talking about
Scroll down to the part where it defines a cusp
there are no cusps for ln(x)
I know that, but I think that it is the exact same case. Since one of the cusp's limits goes to positive infinity, I think that is the same thing for ln(x), but idk why it is positive
Here's the solution I found http://www.slader.com/textbook/9780132014083-calculus-graphical-numerical-algebraic-3rd-edition/450/exercises/23/
They say that it is positive infinity over positive infinity
and what does that have to do with just ln(x)
those are more complicated functions
ln(x) is like half of a cusp
it is not
And I guess it is the half that goes to positive infinity
In terms of limits it is
cusps have a definite stopping point |dw:1425775816174:dw| the ln(x) does not
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!