Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2005
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2005

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: limit problem

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg58944] Re: limit problem
  • From: Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson at gmail.com>
  • Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <dbt3lm$sk4$1@smc.vnet.net> <42E2A56C.3050808@gmail.com>
  • Reply-to: Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson at gmail.com>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

As others have kindly demonstrated, Assuming is able to pass its
assumptions to Limit. I know that the second argument of Simplify and
FullSimplify is for assumptions. For this reason, I think WRI should
update FullSimplify and Simplify to pass their assumptions to Limit
and Integrate, etc. Is there a reason why they should not do so?

On 7/23/05, Jean-Marc Gulliet <jeanmarc.gulliet at gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Chiasson wrote:
> > Dear MathGroup,
> > Honestly, I see no reason why this should return "unevaluated" instead of zero.
> >
> > FullSimplify[Limit[E^(-R t),t\[Rule]Infinity],Infinity>R>0&&Element[R,Reals]]
> >
> > 5.2 on windows
> >
> > Regards,
> Hi Chris,
> 
> The following works:
> 
> In[1]:=
> Limit[E^(-t), t -> Infinity]
> 
> Out[1]=
> 0
> 
> In[2]:=
> Limit[E^((-R)*t), t -> Infinity]
> 
> Out[2]=
> Limit[E^((-R)*t), t -> Infinity]
> 
> In[3]:=
> Assuming[R > 0, Limit[E^((-R)*t), t -> Infinity]]
> 
> Out[3]=
> 0
> 
> Best regards,
> /J.M.
> 


-- 
Chris Chiasson
http://chrischiasson.com/
1 (810) 265-3161


  • Prev by Date: Re: Empirical CDF
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: an Integrate question
  • Previous by thread: Re: limit problem
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: limit problem