$\lim _{x \rightarrow 1}\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2} e^{\ln (x+1)}-e^{1-x}}{2 e^{\ln (x)}}\right)$
Answer (2)
Simplify the expression using exponential and logarithmic properties: lim x → 1 ( 2 x 2 1 ( x + 1 ) − e 1 − x ) .
Substitute x = 1 directly into the simplified expression: 2 ( 1 ) 2 1 ( 1 + 1 ) − e 1 − 1 = 2 1 − 1 = 0 .
Since direct substitution yields 0, the limit is 0.
The final answer is 0 .
Explanation
Problem Analysis We are asked to find the limit of the expression x → 1 lim ( 2 e l n ( x ) 2 1 e l n ( x + 1 ) − e 1 − x ) as x approaches 1. This problem involves exponential and logarithmic functions, suggesting we might need to simplify or use L'Hôpital's rule.
Simplifying and Direct Substitution First, let's simplify the expression using properties of logarithms and exponentials. We know that e l n ( x ) = x , so we can rewrite the expression as: x → 1 lim ( 2 x 2 1 ( x + 1 ) − e 1 − x ) Now, let's try direct substitution to see if we get an indeterminate form. Substituting x = 1 into the simplified expression, we get: 2 ( 1 ) 2 1 ( 1 + 1 ) − e 1 − 1 = 2 2 1 ( 2 ) − e 0 = 2 1 − 1 = 2 0 = 0 Since direct substitution gives us 2 0 = 0 , the limit is 0.
L'Hôpital's Rule Alternatively, if direct substitution leads to an indeterminate form (like 0 0 or ∞ ∞ ), we can use L'Hôpital's rule. Since our initial substitution resulted in 0, we don't strictly need L'Hôpital's rule, but let's apply it to illustrate the process and verify our result. L'Hôpital's rule states that if lim x → c g ( x ) f ( x ) is of the form 0 0 or ∞ ∞ , then lim x → c g ( x ) f ( x ) = lim x → c g ′ ( x ) f ′ ( x ) , provided the limit exists.
Applying L'Hôpital's Rule Let's differentiate the numerator and the denominator with respect to x . The numerator is f ( x ) = 2 1 ( x + 1 ) − e 1 − x , and its derivative is: f ′ ( x ) = 2 1 − ( − 1 ) e 1 − x = 2 1 + e 1 − x The denominator is g ( x ) = 2 x , and its derivative is: g ′ ( x ) = 2 Now, we apply L'Hôpital's rule: x → 1 lim 2 2 1 + e 1 − x = 2 2 1 + e 1 − 1 = 2 2 1 + e 0 = 2 2 1 + 1 = 2 2 3 = 4 3 However, the initial direct substitution gave us 0, while L'Hopital's rule gives us 4 3 . There must have been a mistake in the problem statement, or the problem was designed to trick us into using L'Hopital's rule when it is not necessary.
Final Answer Since the direct substitution yielded 0, the limit is 0. The application of L'Hopital's rule was unnecessary in this case, as the initial limit was not in an indeterminate form.
Conclusion The limit of the given expression as x approaches 1 is 0 .
Examples
In electrical engineering, when analyzing circuits, you might encounter limits that describe the behavior of current or voltage as a component's property (like resistance or capacitance) approaches a certain value. For instance, understanding the limit of a circuit's response as a resistor approaches zero can help in designing efficient power distribution systems or in optimizing signal processing circuits. The ability to evaluate limits ensures that engineers can predict and control the behavior of electrical systems under various conditions, leading to more reliable and effective designs.
The limit of the expression given is 0, found by simplifying the expression and substituting x=1 directly. Direct substitution yielded 0, indicating that the limit is 0. Thus, the final answer is 0 .
;
