In the previous section, we found the limits by simply substituting the value of into the function. But sometimes direct substitution leads to a messy or undefined expression like . This is called an indeterminate form, which means we can’t determine the limit just yet, not necessarily that it doesn’t exist! There are only 7 indeterminate forms:
To resolve these, we’ll have to algebraically manipulate the expression using techniques like factoring, rationalizing, or combining with common denominators before retrying direct substitution.
Many limits can be simplified with factoring. The primary goal is to rewrite the expression and cancel out the “problem area,” turning the indeterminate form into a solvable one.
Evaluate
First, try direct substitution:
This is an indeterminate form.
Factoring the difference of squares in the numerator and the GCF in the denominator,
is similar in form to the sum of cubes . As an organization tip, define and to plug into the factoring formula.
Let so .
Let so .
Factoring:
Then
This technique is useful for limits with square roots if direct substitution results in an indeterminate form. Look for the expression with a square root and multiply by its conjugate.
For example, the conjugate of is . Multiplied together gives a difference of squares
Evaluate
First, try direct substitution:
This is an indeterminate form.
Since there is an expression involving a square root in the numerator, multiply both the top and the bottom by its conjugate, and expand the difference of squares. Keep the other expression (in the denominator) in factored form to see if anything can eventually be canceled out.
on top can be rearranged into and then factored into to be canceled:
Here is an alternative method for the same problem that uses factoring:
Recognize that is a difference of squares that can be factored into
Then
When there are complex expressions involving fractions on fractions, combine them.
Evaluate
Direct substitution results in the indeterminate form . To combine the two rational expressions in the numerator, both must have the common denominator of .
Simplify the complex fraction by rewriting division as multiplication:
Rearrange into so it can be canceled out:
To find , direct substitution works well and the limit is . But suppose
and you wanted to find . Direct substitution in this case results in .
To resolve this indeterminate form, the absolute value function must be rewritten in piecewise form. One-sided limits are then evaluated separately.
Recall that the absolute value function is defined as
To turn any absolute value function into a piecewise function, first identify the breakpoint(s), which are where the expression inside the bars .
Rewrite as a piecewise function.
The expression between the absolute value bars equals 0 when . To determine how the function behaves on either side, test points in each region:
So written as a piecewise function is:
And written in piecewise form is
To find , evaluate the one-sided limits separately:
Since the one-sided limits don’t agree, does not exist.
1. Evaluate
Direct substitution results in . Let’s try factoring. This one is tricky because it’s actually the denominator that should be factored as a difference of cubes. Assigning and yields:
Then
and the limit becomes
Note that we can’t use the conjugate method for cube roots, because which doesn’t resolve the indeterminate form.
2. Evaluate
Direct substitution results in . From the two absolute value expressions, the breakpoints are and . These divide the function into 3 regions:
For this problem, it isn’t necessary to write out the entire piecewise function since we only need to evaluate the limit as which is in the interval . Plugging in a point there, like , results in a negative value for and a positive value for . Rewriting the limit with the piece defined for
Sign up for free to take 7 quiz questions on this topic