Here is the graph of
:
The graph approaches the horizontal line
as it goes out to
the left and right. You write:
In general, to say that
means that the graph of
approaches
as you plug in larger and
larger positive values for x.
means that the graph of
approaches
as you plug in larger and
larger negative values for x.
For example, consider
. If you
set
, you get
That's pretty close to 1, isn't it?
Let's look some examples of a limits at infinity.
Example.
In limits at infinity involving powers of x, the rule of thumb is that the biggest powers dominate. The limit above behaves almost like
because the
's on the top and bottom dominate. you expect the
answer to be
.
On way to see this formally is to divide the top and bottom by
:
Now as
,
Hence,
Here's a picture of
:
What else can happen?
because the
on top beats out the puny
on the bottom.
By the way, it would be correct to say this limit diverges.
However, it's more informative to say how it diverges. In
this case, the function
becomes
large and negative, so you write
for the limit.
On the other hand,
because the
on the bottom beats out the
on
the top.
I noted above that
means that the graph of
approaches the line
as you move to the
right, and
means that the graph of
approaches the line
as you move to the
left. In these situations,
is a horizontal
asymptote for the graph of
.
Not all graphs have horizontal asymptotes --- for example,
goes to
as
and as
. You can
check for the presence of horizontal asymptotes by computing
and
and seeing if
either is a number.
Example. Find the horizontal asymptotes (if
any) of
.
Since
is a horizontal asymptote for the graph at
and at
. The graph is shown below:
Example. Find the horizontal asymptotes of
.
The limit at
works without any surprises. The highest
power on the top and the bottom is x (since
looks like x),
so divide the top and bottom by x:
However, the limit at
is a little tricky! Here's the
computation:
Where did that negative sign come from? Look at the bottom, which was
. x is going to
, so x is taking
on negative values. Now
is positive,
so
is negative.
When you push the
into the square root, you must
leave a negative sign outside. Otherwise, you'd have
, a positive thing.
This is a case where it matters that x is going to
, as opposed to
. Here's the graph:
How do logarithms and exponentials behave as
or
? The relevant facts are summarized below.
I've graphed
(on the left) and
(on the right)
below; you can see that the pictures are consistent with the formulas
above.
For example, the graph of
goes downward asymptotically along
the y-axis from the right. This confirms that
.
Likewise, the graph of
rises sharply as you go to the
right; this confirms that
.
Note that if
in
, the limits are reversed. Specifically,
Example.
Infinity can also appear in limits in connection with vertical asymptotes. I'll say that the graph of a
function
has a vertical asymptote at
if at least one of the limits
is either
or
.
Example. The graph below has a vertical
asymptote at
:
In this case,
In general, you might suspect the presence of a vertical
asymptote at an isolated value of x for which
is
undefined. To confirm your suspicion, you need
to compute the left- and right-hand limits at the point.
Example. Locate the vertical asymptotes of
and sketch the graph near the
asymptotes.
is undefined at
and at
. I'll check for
vertical asymptotes by computing the left- and right-hand limits at
and at
. I'll work through the first one
carefully.
To see this, consider numbers close to 1 but to the right of 1. Then
will be positive, while
will be negative.
For example, if
, then
while
. All together, the fraction
will be negative. But plugging
into the fraction gives
. Since the result is negative and infinite, it must
be
.
You can see numerical evidence for this by plugging (e.g.)
into
.
a large negative number.
In similar fashion,
Here's the graph:
Example. The fact that a function is
undefined at an isolated value does not imply that it has a vertical
asymptote there. For example,
is
undefined at
. The graph looks like this:
You can see this by noting that, for
,
Thus, the graph is the same as the graph of the line
except at
, where there's a hole. In
particular, the graph does not have a vertical asymptote at
.
Send comments about this page to: bikenaga@marauder.millersville.edu.
Last updated: December 2, 2005
Millersville University Home Page
Copyright 2005 by Bruce Ikenaga