Latest on MJJC

The Person Above Me

Oh no. :better: ... But you are done with your exams for this week? :unsure:

TPAM has seen that movie too?
 
no, I have another one tomorrow.

No, I haven't even heard of the movie TPAM is talking ab
 
Oh. Then I wish you good luck, TPAM. :pray:

I also first heard about it from Charis. :D
 
Yeah, it wasn't very hard, but my hand hurt so I left early and didn't really check my answers. :lol:

Has TPAM had her exam yet?
 
Okay, I see. :lol: ... Sure everything is right. :smarty:

Nope, TPAM, first in three weeks. :sigh:
 
I think I made one mistake. :no: Maybe TPAM can help me. :lol:
 
I had to find an asymptote and I had an annoying indeterminate form of a limit and I couldn't remember how to solve that particular form. :rofl: It was 0*?. :sleep:
 
TPAM is here. :clap:

karom said:
I had to find an asymptote and I had an annoying indeterminate form of a limit and I couldn't remember how to solve that particular form. :rofl: It was 0*?. :sleep:
Click to expand...

I would say that's 0... everything multiplicated with 0 is 0...
 
julia95 said:
TPAM is here. :clap:



I would say that's 0... everything multiplicated with 0 is 0...
Click to expand...

:no: I think you misunderstood. This is impossible because everything multiplied by 0 is 0, but everything multiplied by ? is ?. So you have to change it using artifice so it's no longer this situation and I couldn't remember what the artifice was and I couldn't think of anything, so I just gave the final solution, which I kind of guessed. :lmao:

I had lim(x--> -?) xe^x -e^x +1 and I said it's 1, because the other two had to be 0. I think. :lmao:
 
karom said:
:no: I think you misunderstood. This is impossible because everything multiplied by 0 is 0, but everything multiplied by ? is ?. So you have to change it using artifice so it's no longer this situation and I couldn't remember what the artifice was and I couldn't think of anything, so I just gave the final solution, which I kind of guessed. :lmao:

I had lim(x--> -?) xe^x -e^x +1 and I said it's 1, because the other two had to be 0. I think. :lmao:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand your problem. Though I have no idea what artifice that could be. And I remember, this is something that annoys me at math, cause to me it makes sense that it is just 0. :p ... But 0*? isn't defined. :scratch:
So I would say your solution is right, but maybe I'm wrong. :dntknw:
 
I just had an enlightment. :idea: :D

You can do this:

lim(x--> -?) xe^x -e^x +1
= lim(x--> -?) e^x *(x- 1 +1/e^x)

and because e^x is 0 here the solution is 0. :p
 
I suppose it does make sense that it's 0. I mean, it doesn't matter how many times you add 0 to itself, it's still 0. :lol: But then, I guess because ? is... not finite and goes on forever, it's different. Especially that in the case of limits, x isn't actually 0 or ?, it just comes really close to it. I don't know, we didn't actually learn why it's like this, just that it is. :lol: You probably know better than me.
 
karom said:
I suppose it does make sense that it's 0. I mean, it doesn't matter how many times you add 0 to itself, it's still 0. :lol: But then, I guess because ? is... not finite and goes on forever, it's different. Especially that in the case of limits, x isn't actually 0 or ?, it just comes really close to it. I don't know, we didn't actually learn why it's like this, just that it is. :lol: You probably know better than me.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly... though when this x isn't really "?" and it just comes close to it I don't understand why I can't say 0*? is 0.... :scratch: ... anyway, I guess it's a difficult question, that doesn't belong here. :lmao:

Did TPAM read my "enlightment"? :unsure:
 
I guess so. :lol: But it's interesting. :D

No, in which thread did TPAm have it?
 
I agree... :shifty:

In this thread, TPAM. :D ... I posted two times in a row. :lol: #53216
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top