Porisma

Worked solution

Evaluate finite and infinite limits in two ways

Evaluate (a) lim⁡x→1(x2+4x−1)/(x+2)\lim_{x\to1}(x^2+4x-1)/(x+2), (b) lim⁡x→∞1/x\lim_{x\to\infty}1/x, and (c) lim⁡x→∞(3x−1)/(x+2)\lim_{x\to\infty}(3x-1)/(x+2).

CJC · Lecture · Example 1

(a) Use the quotient law or continuity

At x=1x=1, the numerator tends to 1+4−1=41+4-1=4 and denominator to 1+2=3≠01+2=3\ne0, so the limit is 4/34/3. The Teacher note also asks for direct substitution without explicitly invoking each limit law: the rational function is continuous at 1, hence the same value follows.

How did this part go?

(b) Approach zero without becoming zero

As positive xx increases without bound, 1/x1/x approaches 0. Thus the limit is 0, even though no finite nonzero xx gives 1/x=01/x=0. Infinity is not a number to substitute.

How did this part go?

(c) Method 1: divide by the highest power

Divide numerator and denominator by xx: (3−1/x)/(1+2/x)→(3−0)/(1+0)=3(3-1/x)/(1+2/x)\to(3-0)/(1+0)=3. The Teacher note warns that apparent forms such as ∞/∞\infty/\infty or 0/00/0 do not give a limit directly; rewrite the expression first. These are indeterminate forms, not evaluated numbers.

How did this part go?

(c) Method 2: use long division and an asymptote

Write (3x−1)/(x+2)=3−7/(x+2)(3x-1)/(x+2)=3-7/(x+2). The second term tends to 0, so the limit is 3 again. The distinct Teacher note connects this to the horizontal asymptote y=3y=3. Keep the original excluded input x=−2x=-2 when using the rewritten expression.

How did this part go?

Common mistakes

A quotient limit law requires a nonzero denominator limit. An infinite-over-infinite form is not equal to 1.

Solution notes

Printed asks and complete working compared with both source copies. No printed marks or past-paper attribution. Domain explanations independently authored where the source leaves them implicit.

Read the hint