[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Limits: Is there something I'm missing Here?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg39348] Re: Limits: Is there something I'm missing Here?
*From*: "David W. Cantrell" <DWCantrell at sigmaxi.org>
*Date*: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 03:52:21 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <b2ahti$pl4$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
"Ashraf El Ansary" <Elansary at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> One thing I've noticed that if we have a function which has two different
> limits (given two different directions) at one points , mathematica would
> be still give an answer though to my understanding the limit doesn't
> exist in such a case.
You're correct. Mathematica _sometimes_ does that. And I think that
behavior can be terribly deceptive to a naive user!
> Consider the following example:
> a[x_]:=1/x
>
> Limit[a[x],x->0,Direction->+1] +Inf
You had probably intended to write
Limit[a[x],x->0,Direction->-1] +Inf
> Limit[a[x],x->0,Direction->+1] -Inf
>
> Limit[a[x],x->0]. +Inf.... Maybe my calculus knowledge is a
> bit rusty but does the limit exist in this case??
That depends. In an ordinary calculus course, yes, we'd normally just say
that the limit doesn't exist. But a perfect answer should be available to
Mathematica: ComplexInfinity
If Mathematica doesn't give that, then no answer would be preferable to
giving +Infinity, in my opinion.
BTW, it amazes me that Mathematica can't even do something as simple as
Limit[Floor[x], x->0], even if a Direction of +1 or -1 is specified!
David
Prev by Date:
**RE: Limits: Is there something I'm missing Here?**
Next by Date:
**Re: Getting rid of the symbol -> after finding the root**
Previous by thread:
**RE: Limits: Is there something I'm missing Here?**
Next by thread:
**RE: Limits: Is there something I'm missing Here?**
| |