3

I believe that the following limit does not exist: $$\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} \dfrac{\ln(1+\sin x)}{x} $$ A graphing tool suggests that there are vertical asymptotes at "multiples" of 3$\pi$/2. But I am not sure how to show this algebraically. It doesn't qualify for L'Hospital's Rule and series didn't get me very far either. Any suggestions are welcome. EDIT: I tried a u-sub by setting $1+sinx=t$. The expression becomes $\frac{\ln t}{\arcsin(t-1)}$ where $t$ is in the interval $[0,2]$. Now for all $t$ in the interval $(0,2]$, the limit exists (including $t=1$ which is just a basic L'Hospital Rule). For $t=0+$, it is clear the limit does not exist. That would be my best answer. EDIT 2: There is a problem with my answer. $1+sinx=t$ is not equivalent to $x=arcsin(t-1)$ because the arcsine gives a restricted outcome for $x$. It is not possible for $x$ to go to infinity assuming the expression $x=arcsin(t-1)$ in the expression's denominator.

imranfat
  • 10,029
  • 2
    The function is not defined in a neighbourhood of $+\infty$, hence the limit has no sense. – TheSilverDoe Aug 19 '21 at 17:06
  • 4
    @TheSilverDoe Excluding the points $x=\frac{3\pi}2+2k\pi$ from the domain, it makes sense to consider the limit and then show that it doesn't exist. – user Aug 19 '21 at 19:18

2 Answers2

4

As noticed the function is not defined for $x=\frac{3\pi}2+2k\pi$.

Excluding these points from the domain, the limit doesn't exist indeed by

  • $x_n=\frac{3\pi}2+\frac1n+2n\pi$

we have that

  • $\sin x_n =-\cos \left(\frac 1 n\right)=-1+\frac1{2n^2}+o\left(\frac1{n^2}\right)$

and then

$$\dfrac{\ln(1+\sin x_n)}{x_n}=\dfrac{\ln\left(\frac1{2n^2}+o\left(\frac1{n^2}\right)\right)}{\frac{3\pi}2+\frac1n+2n\pi}\to 0$$

but by

  • $x_n=\frac{3\pi}2+\frac1{e^n}+2n\pi$

we have that

  • $\sin x_n =-\cos \left(\frac 1 {e^n}\right)=-1+\frac1{2e^{2n}}+o\left(\frac1{e^{2n}}\right)$

and

$$\dfrac{\ln(1+\sin x_n)}{x_n}=\dfrac{\ln\left(\frac1{2e^{2n}}+o\left(\frac1{e^{2n}}\right)\right)}{\frac{3\pi}2+\frac1{e^n}+2n\pi}\to -\frac 1{\pi}$$


Edit

In order to make things simpler for students, we can proceed also by l'Hospital as follows.

For the first path let $t=\frac1n \to 0^+$ then

  • $x_n=\frac{3\pi}2+\frac1n+2n\pi=\frac{3\pi}2+t+\frac{2\pi}t$
  • $\sin x_n =-\cos t$

and then

$$\lim_{n\to \infty}\dfrac{\ln(1+\sin x_n)}{x_n} =\lim_{t\to 0^+}\dfrac{\ln\left(1-\cos t\right)}{\frac{3\pi}2+t+\frac{2\pi}t} \stackrel{H.R.}=\lim_{t\to 0^+}\dfrac{\sin t}{\left(1-\cos t\right)\left(1-\frac{2\pi}{t^2}\right)}=\\ =\lim_{t\to 0^+}\dfrac{t^2\sin t}{\left(1-\cos t\right)\left(t^2-2\pi\right)}=0$$

For the second path let $t=\frac1{e^n} \to 0^+$ then

  • $x_n=\frac{3\pi}2+\frac1{e^n}+2n\pi=\frac{3\pi}2+t-2\pi\log t$
  • $\sin x_n =-\cos t$

and then

$$\lim_{n\to \infty}\dfrac{\ln(1+\sin x_n)}{x_n} =\lim_{t\to 0^+}\dfrac{\ln\left(1-\cos t\right)}{\frac{3\pi}2+t+2\pi\log t} \stackrel{H.R.}=\lim_{t\to 0^+}\dfrac{\sin t}{\left(1-\cos t\right)\left(1-\frac{2\pi}t\right)}=\\ =\lim_{t\to 0^+}\dfrac{\sin t}{t}\dfrac{t^2}{\left(1-\cos t\right)\left(t-2\pi\right)}=-\frac 1 \pi$$

user
  • 154,566
  • Nice answer +1. I was wondering if we can choose some sequence $x_n$ which makes the limit infinite. Or perhaps we can show that the function oscillates finitely and the case of infinite limit does not exist. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 02:07
  • 1
    Oh well we can replace $e^n$ with $e^{n^2}$ to get an infinite limit. Precisely given any real number $L\leq 0$ we can get a sequence $x_n$ for which function converges to $L$. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 02:14
  • @ParamanandSingh Yes exactly, nice observation to complete the discussion! Thanks – user Aug 20 '21 at 05:35
  • I was hoping for an easier answer, but I am afraid it's not possible. – imranfat Aug 20 '21 at 14:09
  • This is a standard way to show that a limit doesn’t exist. It is not so complicated. Let me know which step is not clear to you. I’ll try to explain it better. – user Aug 20 '21 at 14:43
  • Actually, this problem I wanted to use in my Calculus 2 class. But series is all the way in the end of the course. There is a time constraint too. There is no way I can do this problem if I want to keep the students on board. Your explanation is great, but this problem is more suitable for an introductory real analysis class, not a regular lower level undergrad calc 2 class. – imranfat Aug 20 '21 at 15:34
  • @imranfat: may be you can tell your students using limit laws that the limit can't be a non-zero real number and neither can it be $-\infty$ or $\infty$ (see my comment to another answer here). I am trying to see how to get rid of the possibility that limit can be zero. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 15:44
  • @imranfat: we can argue like this. The numerator can tend to $-\infty$ near places where $\sin x=-1$ without the denominator getting large. Hence the overall fraction will take large negative values near each such troublesome point. So the limit can't be zero. I hope this kind of explanation can be managed in Calc 2 (include graphs near those trouble points if needed). – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 15:57
  • 2
    @imranfat: a similar behavior can be demonstrated for the simpler function $(\tan x) /x$ as $x\to\infty $. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 16:02
  • @ParamanandSingh The $tanx/x$ case is indeed compelling – imranfat Aug 20 '21 at 16:12
  • Yes you could try to explain the same concept using some simpler example as the one indicated by Paramanand. – user Aug 20 '21 at 16:15
  • @ParamanandSingh Time permitting, this is something I may dig into. Thanks – imranfat Aug 20 '21 at 16:15
  • @imranfat: do use desmos.com for showing graphs. It will help the students a lot. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 16:16
  • @ParamanandSingh DESMOS is a great tool however it is not flawless. And there are instances where students have to arrive at an answer algebraically. I compiled a list of limits problems for my students where they are allowed to VERIFY with a graphing device, but the answer must be achieved through mathematical means. For the classic "zero over zero" situations, sometimes DESMOS shows the "hole" in the graph, sometimes it does not. The human element cannot be eradicated (yet...) – imranfat Aug 20 '21 at 16:21
  • Maybe we can show the result without series using l’Hospital. I’ll try something later. – user Aug 20 '21 at 17:12
  • @imranfat I've added a way to proceed with the limit evaluation without using series but referring to l'Hospital. – user Aug 20 '21 at 19:48
  • @user That's an interesting way of working it out. But not suitable for my class. It should be noted that many $x$ values aren't in the domain (of the numerator) to begin with whereas the denominator is always finite for any specific prohibited value. That in itself puts the "validity" of even having a limit into question. That came to mind after looking at Paramanand's example of $tanx/x$. I found that problem in an old textbook. – imranfat Aug 21 '21 at 23:14
  • 1
    @imranfat Yes indeed I've put this observation as first line and as a comment to the question. Maybe you can be interested in the discussion here and here. Let us know how you are going to manage that for your students. Bye – user Aug 22 '21 at 05:47
2

@user 's answer is extremely nice, but I want to include my own answer, which relies on the definition of a limit, because it gives additional insight into how limits are rigorously defined.

Let's consider for a moment what $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(x)$ actually means.

By the definition of a limit, for $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(x) = C$, where C is a finite number, then for all $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an $M$ such that for all $x > M, |f(x)-L| < \epsilon$. This is the formal mathematics way of saying that "a limit of $f(x)$ for $x$ 'at' infinity equalling $L$ really means that no matter how close you want to get to $L$, you can ALWAYS find some number $M$ such that all $x > M$, $f(x)$ is at LEAST that close to $L$."

On the other hand, for $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow \infty} f(x) = \pm\infty$, then for any $r \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists an $M$ such that for all $x > M, f(x) > r$ (for $+ \infty$) or $f(x) < r$ (for $- \infty$). his is the formal mathematics way of saying that "a limit of $f(x)$ for $x$ 'at' infinity equalling $\infty$/$-\infty$ really means that no matter how how big/small you want your number to be, you can ALWAYS find some number $M$ such that all $x > M$, $f(x)$ is ALWAYS at LEAST that big/small."

So what does that mean for this limit?

Consider for a moment the behavior of $\ln(1+\sin(x))$. $1+\sin(x)$ is periodic, and is always $[0,2]$, always hitting $0$ at $\frac{3\pi}{2}k$, where $k$ is an integer. Importantly, no matter what $x$ is, $1+\sin(x)$ always approaches $0$ from POSITIVE values. It is known that, as the positive argument logarithm gets arbitrarily close to $0$, the logarithm gets as small as you want. We express this fact as $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow 0^+} \ln(x) = -\infty$.

Therefore, for all x, $\ln(1+\sin(x))$ gets arbitrarily small over a period of $2\pi$. Those are the asymptotes you're seeing.

But $\ln(1+\sin(x))$ always hits positive values over a period of $2\pi$. Now, for $f(x) = \frac{\ln(1+\sin(x))}{x}$, this function ALSO hits positive values over a period of $2\pi$, but these positive values keep getting closer to zero. BUT, because of the way the numerator works, these positive values are bounded below by 0. So, over every $2\pi$ period, $f(x)$ gets smaller than any value you want AND always gets bigger than zero.

Therefore, no matter the value for $x$ (say $x = M$), there's no finite $L$ such that for all $x > M$, $f(x)$ is within some small distance of $L$, because $f(x)$ always gets arbitrarily small over every period of $2\pi$, so the limit cannot be finite. But we also know that the limit can't be $-\infty$, because there's no $M$ such that for all $x > M$, $f(x)$ is always smaller than any negative number, because $f(x)$ always ends up bigger than $0$ over every period of $2\pi$. And the function does not increase without bound (I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out the proof for this). So the limit cannot be finite and cannot be infinite. Therefore, it does not exist.

  • Your argument does not explain why the limit can't be zero. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 15:34
  • Essentially your proof is another application of limit laws. If $f(x) \to L\neq 0$ then since denominator tends to infinity, the numerator $\ln(1+\sin x) $ tends to either $\infty$ or $-\infty$ (based on $L>0$ or $L<0$). Hence $1+\sin x$ tends to either $\infty$ or $0$ and both these options are absurd. But this argument breaks down when $L=0$. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 15:41
  • It’s not quite what you’re suggesting. The reason it can’t be 0 (or any finite number) is that, no matter how big $M$ is, there are $x > M$ that are super far away. For example, if you want $f(x)$ to get within $0.1$ of zero, there’s no $M$ that all values of $x$ bigger than it are within 0.1, because in every $2\pi$ window, you get numbers smaller than $-0.1$. And the same is true for any finite $L$ – Breaking Bioinformatics Aug 20 '21 at 17:17
  • Basically, this argument isn’t based on limit laws; it’s based on how we use finite behavior to rigorously define what an infinite limit IS. – Breaking Bioinformatics Aug 20 '21 at 17:21
  • Your answer clearly avoids any discussion of why limit can't be zero. Rather you clearly mention "values keep getting closer to zero" which sort of indicates that the limit may be zero after all. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 17:28
  • Also note that only numerator is periodic with period $2\pi$ and not the given function – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 17:29
  • The rigorous definition of a limit being $0$ at “infinity” IS that $f(x)$ gets arbitrarily close to $0$ : it’s how limit at “infinity” are defined. For example, the reason we say that the limit of $f(x) = e^{-x}$ as x goes to infinity is 0 is because, no matter how close we want $f(x)$ to be to $0$, we can always find a number so that ALL x bigger than it are at least that to zero. And I know that it’s only the numerator that’s strictly periodic. The important thing is that $f(x)$ always gets arbitrarily small in every $2\pi$ length of x values. – Breaking Bioinformatics Aug 20 '21 at 17:36
  • Ok I now got your point. Over every period you show that the function takes positive values as well as arbitrary large negative values. That's why the limit does not exist. I hope I have interpreted your answer correctly. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 17:37
  • Yes, precisely this. – Breaking Bioinformatics Aug 20 '21 at 17:37
  • I will remove my comments if you wish and add a +1. – Paramanand Singh Aug 20 '21 at 17:37