More help with l'hospital's rule: can I evaluate a problem using l'hospital's rule when the following condition exists: lim(x-->infinity) (xe^(1/x)-x)

- anonymous

- jamiebookeater

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

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 this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- anonymous

Sorry, the condition, after I worked the problem is -1/infinity

- hartnn

no, L'Hopital's can be applied only if you have the form 0/0 or \(\infty\)/\(\infty\)
so, what you can do is,
(xe^(1/x)-x)
=x( (e^(1/x)-1))
= (e^(1/x)-1) / (1/x)
now its 0/0 form and you can apply L'Hopitals.

- kirbykirby

you get a form infinity - infinity which is undefined

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- anonymous

Thank you, I set it up differently :(

- anonymous

Also, aren't there other conditions for l'hospital's? For example 1^infinity?

- hartnn

if you have 1^infinity form, you can apply log to both sides to get 0/0 form, but there are other ways to deal with 1^infinity form also.

- hartnn

for L'Hopital's , only 0/0 or infinity/infinity should be there.

- kirbykirby

You can only apply L'Hopital's rule when you have the form \[0/0\] or \[\infty/\infty\]. When you have 1^infinity, you usually transform your by using ln (natural log) on both sides of your equation (set your limit as y = lim... blabla) then ln both sides

- anonymous

I got infinity over infinity when I worked that problem, how did you get zero over zero?

- hartnn

i meant 0/0 or infinity / infinity ...any one of the form you can get...

- anonymous

I know, but after evaluating the above problem, I got -infinity/infinity, you said you got 0/0

- anonymous

How did you work it differently?

- hartnn

oh, 1/x =0,
e^0 =1
1-1=0 <--numerator
1/x=0 <--denom.

- anonymous

You are right! Thank you!!

- anonymous

Thanks for the help. Keep your eyes peeled, I may need help differentiating it. Soon. I'll close this for now and open a new one if I need help differentiating it.

- kirbykirby

(e^(1/x)-1) / (1/x)\[\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{e^{1/x}-1}{\frac{1}{x}}= \frac{\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}e^{1/x}-1}{\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{x}}=\frac{e^{1/\infty}-1}{\frac{1}{\infty}}=\frac{e^0-1}{0}=0/0\]

- hartnn

ok, sure :)

- anonymous

Thanks Kirby!

- hartnn

one tip,
before differentiating, substitute x =1/y
so, that y-->0
then diff. num and denom. seperately.
it'll much easier than to diff. by x.

- anonymous

What? Why? I don't understand your tip at all... does infinity equal 1/0?

- kirbykirby

It's the limit as x->0 of 1/x ... it's different than just "1/x" where x=0

- hartnn

yes, it does.

- kirbykirby

|dw:1358746300788:dw|

- hartnn

x---> infinity
x is very very large but not equal to infinity
1/x will be very very small, but not =0
-----> 1/x->0

- anonymous

interesting

- kirbykirby

As you go towards x->0 on the x-axis, you approach infinity because there is an asymptote at x=0. So, the graph is continuously stretching out infinitely along the asymptote

- anonymous

It's hard for me to visualize. Why is that fraction easier to use than just x as it approaches infinity?

- anonymous

So I have (-e^(1/x)/x^2)/-(1/x^2), which, using l'hospital's rule gives me 0/0. I differentiate that and I have

- kirbykirby

x->0 from the right obviously, it approaches +infinity, but -infinity if it approaches 0 from the left

- anonymous

1/infinity... which is zero, what do you think? Am I differentiating it correctly?

- hartnn

see, if you differentiate directly, you'll need to differentiate, 1/x in the denominator, which will give you -1/x^2 , which again will be 0 for x->infinity.
BUT, if you put y=1/x
you'll have y in the denominator, and differentiating y will give u 1.
got the point ?

- anonymous

no... give me a second for my brain to process this

- anonymous

Yeah, I don't see how putting zero in a denominator will ever give me one?

- anonymous

if y is approaching zero, that is, and is in the denominator

- hartnn

'putting zero in a denominator ' ??

- anonymous

you said I should use y--->0 instead of 1/x as x---> infinity. If I plug y in my denominator, then I'll have zero.

- anonymous

I'm supposing I actually have Zero idea what you're talking about... in the numerator

- hartnn

wait, did you try differentiating without any substitution ?
then you'll see what problems arise.
then you put 1/x = y.

- anonymous

I tried differentiating and I wound up with 1/infinity, which is zero. I'm wondering if I got it or if I botched it.

- hartnn

umm....no, you don't get 1/infinity....show your steps....

- anonymous

okay. I have to differentiate (-e^(1/x)/X^2)/(1/(x^2))

- anonymous

I get -e^(1/x)/(x^2) * -x^2

- hartnn

wait.

- anonymous

that gives me -e^(1/x)/x^2 * -1

- anonymous

I'm waiting

- kirbykirby

(-e^(1/x)/X^2)/(1/(x^2))= -e^(1/x)

- hartnn

numerator = e^(1/x) -1 ---> (-1/x^2) e^(1/x)
denominator =1/x ------> (-1/x^2)
overall = e^(1/x)
yeah...

- anonymous

so I do that before I differentiate

- hartnn

you got (-1/x^2) e^(1/x) and (-1/x^2) after differentiating only...

- hartnn

and then you can directly put 1/x = 0, e^0=1

- anonymous

so I have 1/0, or indeterminate?

- hartnn

you have 1 in the denominator now...not 0

- anonymous

got it, so my answer is 1!

- hartnn

yes!

- anonymous

e^0/1?

- anonymous

vunderbar! so I shouldn't have differentiated in the first place.

- anonymous

I just evaluated it wrong. You are amazing. Who are you? Thanks a million!

- hartnn

i am just another helper, glad i could help :)
welcome ^_^

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.