(Just including the graph for reference. I'm not sure it helps with proper description or the answer the teacher was asking for, but you can see that from one direction it goes negative as you approach 8 and from the other it goes to positive infinity.)
I have a BA in Mathematics. The limit is indeed determined by the direction you approach the limiting value.
When given without specification, the limit is implied to come from the left, meaning it increases towards the limiting value, which is why you see +inf.
This is just not true. The normal limit we have here means a limit would have to exist from both directions and they should be equal. They're not, so the limit doesn't exist.
One-sided limits would be denoted by x -> 5– and x -> 5+ or similar.
PS: in complex analysis, there is no distinction between +infty and -infty, so there it would be correct to say the function has limit infty at 5.
In my experience with maths, there's a whole bunch of different conventions all over the place, so it might've genuinely been how they were taught, even if you were taught differently...
You're right. But in this case, which is the case I was referring to, there is no two sided limit. It is discontinuous. It is in this case which I was referring to. Sorry for not being clear.
Don't think so. It looks weird, but very consistently. Look at the kerning, the spacing after each "e" is just a little too wide, and all the "e"s have the same little hump at the top.
I would guess this is a mild anti-dyslexia font or sth like that.
Story time, third grader me would have done this no questions about it.
Having to solve multiplication and recently had learned the table of 9 trick i was looking if there where other tricks I could find.
The first one was number x10 and what i observed is that if you do times ten. You take the number. And you put 1 “0” behind it.
Interesting…. I thought
But the next one multiplied with a single digit so how could i apply that theory.
Simple. 1+0 is 1, which is a single digit so if you multiply by 10, you actually multiply by 1+0 which means you put 1 zeros behind it
Multiple by 2 is short for multiply
By 2+0, put 2 zeros behind it
Multiply by 9, put 9 zeros behind it.
I definitely knew this is not what we had learned, and knew there was a “chance” i was going to fail all of these, i also even knew some of the actual answers however i also believed there was a chance that i found an
alternative equally good solution, and I consciously decided to take that risk because I wanted to know if i was right. Maybe I discovered something new
My teacher was not happy to say the least, and in that (actual) furry did treat me unfair and it still bothers me. Because i got a zero for the assignment.. while i was very certain that the 2 occurrences of x10 did have the appropriate solution.
It’s been a while… but isn’t that negative?
Or is there some default given of which side it’s approaching from.
I think it is not defined. It has a limes from the left (- inf) and limes from the right (+ inf) but no two-sided limes.
Edit: wolframalpha agrees but I don't know for sure
Is that the Tootsie Roll Theorem?
You put the lime on the coconut and drink it all up.
You put the lime in the coconut. You're such a silly woman.
No kink shaming!
Yeah, it would have to be defined as a one-sided limit.
(Just including the graph for reference. I'm not sure it helps with proper description or the answer the teacher was asking for, but you can see that from one direction it goes negative as you approach 8 and from the other it goes to positive infinity.)
I have a BA in Mathematics. The limit is indeed determined by the direction you approach the limiting value.
When given without specification, the limit is implied to come from the left, meaning it increases towards the limiting value, which is why you see +inf.
Yeah but then it should be negative infinite, cause if x<8 the fraction is negative.
Ah, I misread the - as a +. You're correct! Sorry, I just woke up and am in the middle of my morning doomscrolling sesh
Conveniently modeled with the same limit.
Though I'm not sure what negative doom is and what happens when it approaches infinity.
This is just not true. The normal limit we have here means a limit would have to exist from both directions and they should be equal. They're not, so the limit doesn't exist.
One-sided limits would be denoted by x -> 5– and x -> 5+ or similar.
PS: in complex analysis, there is no distinction between +infty and -infty, so there it would be correct to say the function has limit infty at 5.
In my experience with maths, there's a whole bunch of different conventions all over the place, so it might've genuinely been how they were taught, even if you were taught differently...
Yeah, that's my experience too. When we did this in school we always defined from which side we were approaching the function.
You're right. But in this case, which is the case I was referring to, there is no two sided limit. It is discontinuous. It is in this case which I was referring to. Sorry for not being clear.
It should be +/-∞
Minus or plus depending on the side from which you approach the limes.
Infinity limes? After all these years, this meme starts to make sense:
Just here to comment on the weird spreadsheet format (of that oooooold joke)
I took a screenshot and put it in a word doc and embedded that in a excel sheet and sent it in an email...
"Endorsed for MS Office" on LinkedIn.
That just sounds like a .norm file
also weird looking text, overshapen
Like an AI's idea of what a font looks like.
Don't think so. It looks weird, but very consistently. Look at the kerning, the spacing after each "e" is just a little too wide, and all the "e"s have the same little hump at the top.
I would guess this is a mild anti-dyslexia font or sth like that.
That is not infinity, its undefined.
This only works if you use a one sided limit.
or the domain is the projectively extended real line! (obv not the case here ofc)
That’s a ChatGPT kind of answer. A pattern is recognized, but the meaning isn’t understood.
There's no way ChatGPT would be creative enough to put a number on its side
ChatGPT is such garbage.
edit: The people down voting me clearly are bots or GPT fanbois. In AI circles nobody thinks ChatGPT is good.
ChatGPT just gives the correct answer that the limit doesn't exist.
claude is gaud
Rote learning isn't new and is still quite popular.
The first one is incorrect, the limit doesn't exist unless you specify whether you're coming from the left or right.
On another note, I think their student has invented a new symbol for "Does Not Exist".
the Cheat is to the limit
Everybody Fhqwhgads
Story time, third grader me would have done this no questions about it.
Having to solve multiplication and recently had learned the table of 9 trick i was looking if there where other tricks I could find.
The first one was number x10 and what i observed is that if you do times ten. You take the number. And you put 1 “0” behind it.
Interesting…. I thought
But the next one multiplied with a single digit so how could i apply that theory.
Simple. 1+0 is 1, which is a single digit so if you multiply by 10, you actually multiply by 1+0 which means you put 1 zeros behind it
Multiple by 2 is short for multiply By 2+0, put 2 zeros behind it
Multiply by 9, put 9 zeros behind it.
I definitely knew this is not what we had learned, and knew there was a “chance” i was going to fail all of these, i also even knew some of the actual answers however i also believed there was a chance that i found an alternative equally good solution, and I consciously decided to take that risk because I wanted to know if i was right. Maybe I discovered something new
My teacher was not happy to say the least, and in that (actual) furry did treat me unfair and it still bothers me. Because i got a zero for the assignment.. while i was very certain that the 2 occurrences of x10 did have the appropriate solution.
Specification gaming lol
This is why we need quantum computing. Traditional computing doesn't account for sideways numbers.
lim means glue in Swedish.
That's all I know.
limx->∞=8
This has me dead like that 8 and 5.