- #1
chemistry1
- 108
- 0
Hi, I'm having trouble understanding the following fact about limits :
If f(x)<=g(x) for all x on (a,b) (except possibly at c) and a<c<b then,
lim f(x) <= lim g(x)
x -> c x->c
Here's how I interpret the definition : We have two functions f(x) and g(x), and the inequality f(x)<=g(x) hold true for all values that are not c. (That our interval (a,b)) If we were to evaluate the functions at c (considering that we can do it for our two functions.) then the inequality wouldn't hold anymore. (For example, f(x) would be superiro to g(x))
Please tell me if I have any errors.
THank you!
If you want to read more, go here : http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/ComputingLimits.aspx
If f(x)<=g(x) for all x on (a,b) (except possibly at c) and a<c<b then,
lim f(x) <= lim g(x)
x -> c x->c
Here's how I interpret the definition : We have two functions f(x) and g(x), and the inequality f(x)<=g(x) hold true for all values that are not c. (That our interval (a,b)) If we were to evaluate the functions at c (considering that we can do it for our two functions.) then the inequality wouldn't hold anymore. (For example, f(x) would be superiro to g(x))
Please tell me if I have any errors.
THank you!
If you want to read more, go here : http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/ComputingLimits.aspx