At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions.

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

|dw:1343661876978:dw|

Ah! This is one best though of visually, let me make you a graph:

ok

If you find the function continuous, then you may just plug 3 for \(x\) by the way.

Let's see how the graph is..

Ok. If I plug in 3, I get 3 sqrt(0)

Don't do that now.

What you need are numbers slightly less than 3, like 2.9999999999999

Looks like we can plug in values less than \(3\).

Ok

Because it is a left handed limit, we may plug numbers like agentx5 said :)

ok! can you show how I would solve it

Ok i understand that

About your graph, notice what happens to the function for x > 3

So how would I solve the limit?

By plugging numbers slightly less than 3.

@telliott99 , I know... look at the notation for imaginary and real...

Just saying the graph is not correct. It doesn't have a hole in it. And do what @ParthKohli says

2.99(9-2.99^2)

for 2.5, f(x) would be 4.145

Find them for all.

Calculator, Schmidt.

so agentx5, I should just use 2.999999 to find the limit?

I got 7.3484

Just not 3.

Looks like its getting closer to 7.5, but let's see it for more values.

Ok! I think its going to be 7.5

Are you sure? Try for 2.9999999 and 2.999999999999999.
So on.

I just tried for that

can someone tell me if im right

I am too lazy to do so :/

come onnn lol

plz! i really need your help..

All right :) let me check it out on Wolfram.

OK

@agentx5 Where is the graph?

The limit was getting smaller and smaller. ;)

You may find from the graph, actually.|dw:1343663313029:dw|

What is \(y\) approaching in the graph? ^

With the limit shown...
|dw:1343663226621:dw|

like 2 or 3 right?

Guys do you know the actual limit?

Yes.

And I'm trying to help you learn visually what's going on so you're not lost here

Yeah I do see it visually,

is the limit around 2 or 3

wait it looks around 0

as 3 approaches 3 from the left, the y value is 0, right?

sorry i meant, as x approaches 3

ok so the limit for this function is 0? :D

But, limit is 0 right? and yes the ddenominator bneomes 0.. not possible

wait so the limit is DNE? or zero!?!

You will see DNE problems, I can guarantee you.

Oh yeah, I know!:)