1. Dividing only some of the terms
the whole limit, 2 to 3 marksWhat not to write
“.”
What to write
“Dividing every term by : .”
Why: A fraction bar is a pair of parentheses: is . Dividing the leading terms only changes the function.
MATH 203 Calculus I • Concordia University, Montreal
This sheet is not a summary of section 2.6 of Thomas' Calculus: you already have the textbook and the lecture notes. It answers one question, what makes students lose marks on limits involving infinity and asymptotes in MATH 203 at Concordia University, and which precise gesture avoids each loss.
The rules of the chapter fit on a few lines: divide by the dominant power, read the sign on each side of a vertical asymptote, divide to find an oblique asymptote. The marks go elsewhere, in the algebra that has to happen BEFORE a rule applies: a term left undivided, an exponent subtracted wrongly, forgotten, a denominator never factored. That is what the traps below are made of. No L'Hôpital's Rule anywhere: it comes much later in the course, and the algebra is faster.
The thread of the chapter
The limit rules of this chapter are short; the marks are lost in the algebra before them: every term divided by the dominant power, at , the denominator factored before its signs are read.
The first line of the division, “dividing by , the highest power of the denominator”, is what the marker looks for; the answer alone earns little.
Before accepting a limit at , look at the sign of the expression at : it catches the forgotten minus sign every time.
Each row reads from left to right: the assumptions, then the result. A red cell is not an answer, it is the finding that the form settles nothing and the instruction to rewrite it. Every case is followed by a worked example.
Read a line as: when the largest exponent on top and the largest below compare as in the first two columns, the limit at is the third. The red line is not an answer yet: the sign still has to be decided.
| Top exponent | Bottom exponent | Limit at infinity |
|---|---|---|
| Example: , since . | ||
| Example: , and (both largest exponents are ). | ||
| , oblique line | ||
| Example: : asymptote . | ||
| , no line | ||
| Example: behaves like : at both ends, a parabola, and no line fits, since . | ||
| , at | sign of sign still to decide | |
| Example: as . Same form, other result: The same quotient tends to as : same exponents, opposite answers. What to do: Write for before dividing. | ||
The table gives the limit; the division still has to be written, because it is the division that earns the method marks.
These are the errors I correct most often in session. Each one costs marks on a paper, even when the reasoning behind it is right.
What not to write
“.”
What to write
“Dividing every term by : .”
Why: A fraction bar is a pair of parentheses: is . Dividing the leading terms only changes the function.
What not to write
“In the highest powers are and , so the limit is .”
What to write
“Multiplying top and bottom by : .”
Why: At infinity is the SMALLEST term. Rewriting the negative exponents as fractions, then clearing them, removes the doubt.
What not to write
“.”
What to write
“For , , so the quotient is .”
Why: when is negative. At the root is positive and negative: was impossible from the start.
What not to write
“, so .”
What to write
“.”
Why: : at , , not . The conjugate turns the difference into a quotient whose denominator grows.
What not to write
“The denominator of vanishes at and : two vertical asymptotes.”
What to write
“ for : a hole at , and one vertical asymptote, .”
Why: A vertical asymptote needs the numerator NOT to tend to . Factor the denominator () and the numerator before deciding anything.
What not to write
“, so .”
What to write
“; dividing every term by , .”
Why: The law is : exponents are SUBTRACTED, and the variable stays. comes from dividing by , which is not a law of exponents.
What not to write
“The graph of is almost flat after , so it has a horizontal asymptote near .”
What to write
“For every , as soon as , so : no horizontal asymptote.”
Why: Slow growth is not bounded growth. passes at , at , and every level after that.
What not to write
“ divided by gives the quotient , so the oblique asymptote is .”
What to write
“, so : the oblique asymptote is .”
Why: Subtracting leaves , not : every sign of the subtracted line changes. Expanding back gives and catches the slip.
Look at where x goes and at what each piece of the formula does before writing anything: the form picks the tool
If , numerator , denominator → factor the denominator, read the sign of each factor on each side
Example: : as , as
If , numerator and denominator → factor both, cancel, then decide: a finite limit is a hole
Example: at
If , powers of (integer, negative or fractional) → rewrite as powers, divide every term by the dominant power of the denominator
Example:
If with → write first
Example:
If a difference of roots, both → multiply and divide by the conjugate
Example: at
If exponentials → divide by the exponential that dominates in THAT direction
Example: : at , at
If a bounded oscillating factor times something → Sandwich Theorem
Example: , so the limit at is
If inside , form → substitute ,
Example:
L'Hôpital's Rule is section 4.5, at the end of the course: every limit of this chapter must go through one of these branches.
A marker ticks steps. Here they are in order, with the concluding sentence expected word for word.
When to use it: Any question that says “find all the asymptotes”, “describe the behaviour near the asymptotes”, or opens a curve sketch
Concluding sentence
“Since and , the line is a vertical asymptote; since as , the line is an oblique asymptote at both ends.”
The trap: Stopping at “the denominator vanishes at and ” without factoring the numerator: one of them may be a hole.
Marking: Typically 1 mark per asymptote with its justification, 1 for the side of the curve, and the method marks in the factoring and the division.
Five minutes of checking recover more marks than one more problem started in a hurry.
The calculator at a large x
MATH 203 allows a scientific calculator: evaluate the expression at x = 1000 and at x = -1000. It proves nothing, but a value far from your limit, or of the wrong sign, says the algebra is wrong.
at gives about : the limit is plausible, and is ruled out.
A test value on each side of a vertical asymptote
Evaluate the expression 0.001 to the left and 0.001 to the right of the asymptote and read only the sign. It confirms each branch in ten seconds.
at is about : on the left, and a written would be a sign error.
Expand a division back
After a long division, multiply the quotient by the divisor and add the remainder: you must get the numerator back, term by term.
: the division of by is right.
Plug in one number after a simplification
Every rewriting (factoring, cancelling, splitting a fraction) must give the same value at one simple point, say x = 2.
and at : both times. A factorization would give .
Find all the asymptotes of , with the one-sided limits, and say where the graph has a hole. Give the position of the graph relative to its oblique asymptote.
Every step justified as on a MATH 203 final; the calculator is only for checking.
Step 1
Factor: and . Domain: , . For , .
Why
Factoring first shows which zeros of the denominator are shared with the numerator: the candidates for a hole. Taking out the common factor before factoring the trinomial is the step most often skipped.
Step 2
At both the numerator and the denominator vanish. After cancelling, : a hole at , no asymptote.
Why
A finite limit at an excluded point is a hole, and naming it with its coordinates earns its own mark.
Step 3
At the simplified numerator tends to , and on the left, on the right: , . The line is a vertical asymptote.
Why
The NEGATIVE numerator reverses both signs; checking only the denominator gives the two answers backwards.
Step 4
Divide: , so for . Since at both ends, is an oblique asymptote at both ends, and there is no horizontal one.
Why
The quotient of the division IS the asymptote; reading off the leading terms gives the slope and misses the .
Step 5
Position: , negative for and positive for : below the asymptote on the right, above it on the left. Check at : and .
Why
The sign of the remainder makes the sketch right near the asymptote, and the check at one point catches a division error.
The conclusion, written out
“The graph of has a hole at , the vertical asymptote with and , and the oblique asymptote at both ends, the graph lying above it for and below it for .”
The classic mistake on this problem: Declaring two vertical asymptotes, and , because the denominator vanishes twice; or giving as the oblique asymptote from the leading terms.
Divide every term of the numerator and of the denominator by the highest power of x that appears in the denominator, then let each term of the form a constant over a power of x go to zero. If the top degree is smaller the limit is zero, if the degrees are equal it is the ratio of the leading coefficients, and if the top degree is larger the limit is infinite.
Because the square root of x squared is the absolute value of x, and for a negative x the absolute value is minus x. So when you factor x squared out of a square root and x goes to minus infinity, the root becomes minus x times the root of what is left. A cube root does not do this: the cube root of x cubed is x for every x.
Write every term as a power of x first. A negative exponent is a fraction, so x to the minus three is one over x cubed, which is the smallest term at infinity, not the largest. Then either multiply the numerator and the denominator to clear the fractions, or divide every term by the dominant power, subtracting exponents.
A rational function has one exactly when the degree of the numerator is one more than the degree of the denominator. Divide the polynomials, writing a zero for every missing power: the quotient, a line mx plus b, is the oblique asymptote, and the sign of the remainder over the denominator tells you if the curve is above or below it.
Not in this chapter. L'Hopital's Rule is taught near the end of the course, and the questions on limits at infinity and asymptotes are graded on the algebraic methods: dividing by the dominant term, the conjugate, factoring, combining logarithms. They are also faster than the rule on rational functions and square roots.
© Ahmed Squalli Houssaini. Revision sheet published at www.letuteurscientifique.ca/en/fiches/math203-limits-infinity-asymptotes. Free for personal and classroom use; republishing it elsewhere requires written permission (legal notice).