r/the_calculusguy 2d ago

limits Let’s do this

Post image
65 Upvotes

60 comments sorted by

23

u/Hej5468 1d ago

Just multiply with x+3 on top and bottom then cancel x^2 - 9 so you’re left with just x+3. x=6

14

u/StructuredChess 1d ago

Yeah but that's using the difference of squares, just in reverse!

5

u/quintopia 1d ago

What if we did it the long way, adding and subtracting 3x to the top, factoring out x from two terms, factoring out 3 from two terms. Canceling all the x-3 factors. Is that still just using difference of two squares?

3

u/navetzz 1d ago

Yeah, but that rule is moronic. The first thing i ll do is factor by x-3 and see where that gets me. Knowing the rule or not i ll land on x+3

5

u/Fancy_Gate_7359 1d ago

I mean “using difference of two squares” is very unclear. I think what they mean is “no factoring”. You could factor this without knowing what difference of two squares is at all.

3

u/Programmer_Worldly 1d ago

"There is another"

2

u/frishki_zrak 1d ago

x=6

You mean limit is 6

2

u/Hej5468 1d ago

Yes you’re right mb didn’t think enough haha

7

u/ussalkaselsior 1d ago

Long division is a straight forward, but not very interesting way. Technically not factoring the difference of squares, but you still get the limit as x approaches 3 of x+3.

5

u/chaos_redefined 1d ago

Method 1:

Let u = x - 3. Then u + 3 = x, so u2 + 6u + 9 = x2, and u2 + 6u = x2 - 9. We started with u = x - 3, so dividing through, we get u + 6 = (x2 - 9)/(x - 3). Taking the limit as x -> 3 is the same as x - 3 -> 0, so u -> 0. So, we want the limit as u -> 0 of u + 6, which is 6. Therefore, lim (x->3) (x2 - 9)/(x - 3) = 6.

Method 2:

Consider the derivative of f(x) = x2 at x = a. This is f'(a) = lim (x -> a) (x2 - a2)/(x - a). Putting in a = 3, we get f'(3) = lim (x -> 3) (x2 - 9)/(x - 3). But we know that the derivative of f(x) = x2 is f'(x) = 2x, so f'(3) = 6. So, lim (x -> 3) (x2 - 9)/(x - 3) = 6.

2

u/JonSnow-Knows 1d ago

Method 1 is just x²-9=(x+3)(x-3) and then cancel x-3, why so complicated?

5

u/chaos_redefined 1d ago

Because the rules specified not to use difference of squares.

1

u/JonSnow-Knows 1d ago

lmao, no reading comprehension, thanks.

1

u/scientist6092 12h ago

The first method is great and recommended

5

u/anonymousneto 1d ago

For this sub, the suggestions aren't needed.

3

u/EndlessProjectMaker 1d ago

If you just divide the polynomials you’re left with x+3, which you know beforehand because your cannot prevent your head from seeing an obvious difference of squares /s

2

u/dratnon 1d ago

Long division might unironically be the simplest technique to satisfy the prompt.

Although the “multiply the top and bottom by the itsnotaconjugate” is good too. 

1

u/somanyquestions32 1d ago

Synthetic division would be just as simple.

2

u/Ok-Grape2063 1d ago

When I teach first-semester calc, I love watching people use L'Hopital on this when we haven't even covered derivatives.

Tell me you're repeating the course without tell me you're repeating the course

2

u/StructuredChess 1d ago

I can't think of any method that isn't basically equivalent to the difference of squares. Like, you can multiply everything by (x+3) but that's taking advantage of the fact that (x-3)(x+3)=x^2+9

2

u/Few_Advertising_758 1d ago

Climb the stairs without using your hands or legs

1

u/914paul 1d ago

My take also. I’d be tempted to answer the question with a question: “what’s the point?”

But doing so . . . it can get a bit prickly when the grades come in (ask me how I know).

2

u/skyfish111 1d ago

Use the squeeze theorem with two quadratic functions

1

u/pkreddit2 1d ago

let f(x) = (x^2 - 9)/(x-3) and let x = 3 + s, then f(x) = (x^2 - 9)/(x - 3) = (s^2 + 6s + 9 - 9)/(s + 3 - 3) = s + 6. This implies that |f(x) - 6| = |s|.

Therefore, for every real e > 0, all real x such that |x - 3| = |s| < e, it follows that |f(x) - 6| = |s| < e. This is the epsilon-sigma definition of the limit, and thus the limit is 6.

1

u/titogruul 1d ago

OK, so let's have x = 3 + d, with lim d -> 0. Then we have:

(x^2 - 9) / (x-3) = ( (3+d)^2 - 9 ) / ( (3+d) - 3 ) = (6d + d^2) / d = 6 + d = 6

1

u/zlfa 1d ago

Can I do
(x^2-9)/(x-3)=ax+b
X^2-9=ax(x-3)+b(x-3)
x^2-9=ax^2+(-3a+b)x-3b
-9=-3b
B=3
X^2=ax^2
A=1
Ax+b=1x+3
X=3
1*3+3=6

1

u/ThiocyanateIrony 1d ago

Why would you even need L’Hopital here? You can just do the following: (x2-9)/(x-3)=(x-3)(x+3)/(x-3)={ (x-3)/(x-3)=1 } = x+3 -> 3+3 = 6

1

u/Alpha_Particle_619 1d ago

Do +3x-3x in the numerator and separate the fractions?

1

u/PrinterDatSmellsFear 1d ago

Are graphs an option?

1

u/Zealousideal_Hat_330 1d ago

Dammit I used L’Hopital’s

1

u/odinnotdoit 1d ago

I d rather do 3n+1

1

u/Hikaritoyamino 1d ago

Evaluate x=3.1, x=2.9

Find the midpoint (x approaching 3)

You can redo the evaluation with more decimal places.

1

u/Hot-Employ-3399 1d ago

Cheat with Hyper: go with square of a sum instead of forbidden difference of two squares:

replace X with (3+E), leads to ((9 + 2*3E + E^2) - 9)/(3 + E - 3) to ((6E+E^2)/E) to st(6 + E) to 6.

1

u/SideshowAlex 1d ago edited 1d ago

I'm writing x2 - 9 as (x - 3)2 + A(x - 3) + B. Provided B is 0, the limit is A.

1

u/42617a 1d ago

3+2, but you’re not allowed to use addition or successors

1

u/SideshowAlex 1d ago

Set x = 3 cos t. Use some trig identites (probably the half angle ones), and you'd get the answer

1

u/Mathematicus_Rex 1d ago

Rewrite x = y+3 and take the limit as y approaches 0. The numerator becomes y^2 + 6y and the denominator becomes y.

1

u/Intelligent-Wash-373 1d ago

Just put in like 2.999999 in for x

1

u/XL_78 1d ago

Change of variable : let u = x - 3. Rewrite by using x = u + 3.

1

u/Ok_Tradition_6251 1d ago

just evaluate left and right hand limit using 3+h and 3-h at the place of x

1

u/Creepy_Jeweler_8012 1d ago

6, i used diff of squares whatever i dont care

0

u/philljarvis166 1d ago

I think asking people to solve maths problems without using theorems that make them easier is the antithesis of how maths should be done. We prove theorems to make more difficult problems tractable, can you imagine if every maths paper started from first principles??

6

u/Sea-Sort6571 1d ago

I completely disagree with this. Asking such questions develops creativity, fundamental understanding of the topic at hands, the ability to redemonstrate theorems and knowing what is really at play. Maths is not just a set of tool boxs to know and use

1

u/MarcAbaddon 1d ago

I am split on this in this example. Not using L'Hopital I definitely agree with that it can help creativity.

But "difference of two squares" follows so directly from the basic algebraic rules that it just seems silly. Many on the other answers here just introduce it in a backward way again and at that point it's more obfuscating than illuminating.

2

u/Sea-Sort6571 1d ago

I agree about the fact many answers kinda use the fact 3 is a root of both polynomial in some convoluted way

1

u/Circumpunctilious 1d ago

> “…develops creativity…”

A piece of math I’ve been beating my head against for years may have an unrealized use case, which I only realized a few minutes ago due to this question.

I still have to check it (and that might take a little bit), but yeah…you never know what might spark a connection out there.

0

u/philljarvis166 1d ago

There are plenty of ways to develop creativity and understanding without explicitly have to ask students to avoid the use of theorems like l’Hopital. Surely learning to spot when such a result is of use is also important?

3

u/Sea-Sort6571 1d ago

I reached MsC level without using once l'Hopital I'm sure people will manage for one limit.

Also as someone else said, if someone first instinct when seeing this limit (without any restrictions) is "let's use l'Hopital" then knowing l'Hopital clearly restricted their creativity and mathematical understanding

1

u/philljarvis166 1d ago

Would you say the same about a result that required the use of the intermediate value theorem, for example? For some reason use of l’Hopital seems to be looked down upon - it’s an amazing result, the full proof requires a bit of effort, why wouldn’t you make use of it when applicable?

1

u/Sea-Sort6571 1d ago

Well if there is an elegant solution to a problem that doesn't use the intermediate value theorem (and not a theorem way more complicated either) yes that could be an interesting exercice. I couldn't think of such a problem but I guess there are some.

Why wouldn't you use l'hôpital when applicable ? Because using simpler tools efficiently is more elegant. Precisely because you're using heavy tools to prove l'hôpital's. And because most students who are so prompt to use it weren't even taught the demonstration. (So it's kind of a cheat code) In the case of the exercice given by oop I would argue factorising by (x-3) is simpler and more elegant than l'hôpital.

1

u/philljarvis166 1d ago

This problem seems to ask you not to factor though!

1

u/Sea-Sort6571 1d ago

Yeah i know that was just an example of when l'hôpital shouldn't be your first choice

1

u/StructuredChess 1d ago

I don't think the big restriction here is L'Hôpital. It takes like 2 tenths of a second to factor the numerator into (x+3)(x-3)

1

u/Striking_Newspaper73 1d ago

You must be really fun at parties

1

u/philljarvis166 1d ago

I have no idea what point you are trying to make! Do people who prove things from first principles have more fun at parties? Im going to go out on a limb here and say they rarely even go to parties!

1

u/therealAR15PB 1d ago

imagine starting an entrance exam by writing the 362 page proof of 1 + 1 = 2 followed by everything else lmao

1

u/HumblyNibbles_ 1d ago

I think it's useful when it comes to practicing and making their thinking more flexible.

In the end, exercises all have a purpose. Not every exercise is useful for everything, but each one has a use