Does the limit

4 2
x −4 y
lim 2 2
( x , y ) →(0 , 0) x +2 y

Exist?

Answer :

Step 1 :

We could try direct substitution this will be

4 2
x −4 y 0−0 0
lim 2 2
= lim = lim
( x , y ) →(0 , 0) x +2 y ( x, y ) →(0 ,0 ) 0+0 ( x , y ) →(0 ,0) 0

which is just indeterminate so direct substitution will not work in this example.
Now we can't really factor this expression no can we multiply by a conjugate

Step 2 :

The limt of a function of two variables has the usual intuitive meaning: The values
of f (x , y ) get closer and closer to the (a ,b). The problem is that ( x , y ) can
approach ( a , b ) in infinitely many ways, see in Figure 1.

Step 3 :

So we need to see if maybe this limit doesn't exist so what we're going to do is
we're going to approach the origin from different directions and see if we can get a
mismatch in our answers because if we approach from one direction and get an
answer and if that answer is different as we approach another direction then the
limit doesn't exist

Step 4 :

Let's begin by approaching the origin along the x -axis

So along the x axis y=0. Substitute y=0 in that expression so thus we have
4 2 4
x −4 ⋅ 0 x 2
lim 2 2
=lim 2 =lim x =0
x →0 x +2⋅ 0 x→ 0 x x→ 0

Step 5 :

Let's begin by approaching the origin along the y -axis

So along the x axis x=0 . Substitute x=0 in that expression so thus we have
 4 2 2
0 −4 ⋅ y −4 y
lim 2 2
=lim 2
=lim −2=−2
y → 0 0 +2 ⋅ y y→0 2 y y →0

Step 6 :

Notice that we have a mismatch because they're different. That tells us that the
limit does not exist as we approach to (0,0)
Use L'Hospital's rule to determine the following limit:
lim ¿
()
tan x
+¿ 1
x→ 0 ¿
x

Answer :

Step 1 :

Note that we really do need to do the right-hand limit here. We know that the x x
form is defined if x is positive and so this is the only limit that makes any sense.

Step 2 :

Now, in the limit, we get the indeterminate form, that is ( ∞ ) . L’Hospital’s Rule
0

won’t work on exponential form, it only works on quotients.

Step 3 :

Let

()
tan x
1
y=
x

However, we can take natural logarithm of both side and we have

()
tan x
1
l n y=l n
x

l n y=tan x ln ( 1x )
Step 4 :

We can apply the inverse of ln and take e to the both side and we have

ln y
tan x ln ( 1x )
e =e
tan x ln ( 1x )
y=e

We know that tan x=

1
cot x
and ln ()
1
x
=−ln x . Substitute to the expression and we

have
−ln x
cot x
y=e
−∞ −ln x
We found the indeterminate form , that is . So we can use L’Hospital’s
∞ cot x
Rule
Step 5 :

Taking limit into both side

lim ¿
+¿
x→ 0 y= lim ¿¿
−ln x
x →0+¿ e cot x ¿

−ln x
Now we focus on and apply the L’Hospital’s Rule
cot x
−1
Derivative of −ln x is
x

Derivative of cot x is −csc 2 x

Step 6 :

Substitute to the expression and we get

lim ¿
−ln x
+¿
x→ 0 e cot x ¿

¿ lim ¿
−1
+¿ 2
x ⋅(−csc x)
x→ 0 e ¿
¿ lim 2
¿
sin x
+¿ x
x→ 0 e ¿
¿ lim ¿
sin x
⋅sin x
+¿ x
x→ 0 e ¿

lim ¿ lim ¿
We know that x→ 0
sin x
+¿
=1¿
and +¿
x→ 0 sin x=0 ¿
x

Substitute to the expression and we get

lim ¿
sin x
⋅sin x
+¿ x
x→ 0 e = lim ¿¿
+¿ 1⋅ 0
x →0 e = lim ¿¿
0
x → 0 +¿ e =1¿

So, the limit is 1.

At the beginning of the summer, the population of wasps is growing at a rate
proportional to the population. From a population of 10 on May 1, the number of
wasps grows to 50 in thirty days. If the growth continues to follow the same
model, how many days after May 1 will the population reach 100?

Answer :

Step 1 :

Choosing a base

Using the model

ht
y= y 0 b

Note :

y 0 is initial amount present

b is growth factor

h is reciprocal of the time period (1/time period)

t is time

Step 2 :

According to the problem we know that the population grows from 10 to 50 in 30

days, which is by a factor of 5. The initial amount present y 0 is 10 and time period
is 30 days.

Step 3 :

So the mathematical model of that problem is

1
⋅t
y=10 ⋅5 30

Step 4 :

Now to solve how many days after May 1 will the population reach 100 we need
only solve the equation
1
.t
100=10⋅5 30

Step 5 :

Solve the equation

 1
.t
30
100=10⋅5
1
.t
30
10=5

Taking natural logarithm to both side

1
.t
ln 10=ln 5 30
1
ln 10= ⋅t ⋅ ln 5
30
ln 10
t=30 ⋅
ln 5
t=30 ⋅43
t=42, 92

Approximately 43 days will pass after May 1 before the population reaches 100.
An average of 6000 passengers a day takes the city subway trains at the cost
of $ 3 per ride. The city board is thinking about raising the price to $ 3.50 per
ride in order to generate larger revenue. They talk to a consulting team whose
study shows that for each $ 0.50 increase in price, the number of passengers would
be reduced by an average of 1000 a day. The consulting team suggests the city
board should leave the price of $ 3 per ride since it already yields the maximum
revenue. Prove that the consulting team is correct.

Answer :

Step 1 :

First, we could find the Revenue equation

>If no increase

Cost : $ 3+(0)⋅ $ 0.50

Passangers : 6000 – (0)(1000)

Revenue : 18000

>If $ 1 increase

Cost : $ 3+(1)⋅$ 0.50

Passangers : 6000 – (1)(1000)

Revenue : 17500

>If 2 ⋅$ 1.50 increase

Cost : $ 3+(2)⋅$ 0.50

Passangers : 6000 – (2)(1000)

Revenue : 16000

and so on

>If x ⋅ $ 0.50 increase

Cost : $ 3+( x)⋅ $ 0.50

Passangers : 6000−x ⋅(1000)

Revenue : (3+0.5 x )(6000−1000 x )

So the Revenue Equation is R ( x )=(3+0.5 x)(6000−1000 x)

Step 2 :

We could find x that gives you Maximum Revenue.

Step 3 :

Take the derivative of R(x ) which is R '(x ), set it equal to zeros, and solve for x .
The solution x gives you the Maximum Revenue

R ( x )=( 3+0.5 x ) ( 6000−1000 x )

2
R ( x )=18000−500 x
'
R ( x ) =−1000 x

Step 4 :

For Maximum Revenue R '(x )=0 we get x=0 , which means no increase gives
Maximum Revenue.

Step 5 :

This proves that the consulting team is correct. The consulting team suggests the
city board should leave the price of $3 per ride since it already yields the
maximum revenue.
Step 1 :

Let

(x−μ)
w=
√2 σ
The derivative of w (with respect to x ) is
dw 1
=
dx √ 2 σ

dx= √ 2 σ dw

Step 2 :

We do some manipulation and we get

(x−μ)
w= x=√ 2 wσ + μ
√2 σ
Step 3 :

Substitute back into the integral and we get

2
∞ − ( x−μ )
1
∫ xe
2
2σ
dx
√2 π σ 2 −∞
∞
1
∫ ( √ 2 wσ+ μ ) e−w √ 2 σ dw
2

¿
√2 π σ 2
−∞

∞ ∞
1 1
∫ ( √ 2 wσ ) e √ 2 σ dw+ ∫ ( μ ) e−w √2 σ dw
2 2
−w
¿
√2 π σ 2
−∞ √2 π σ 2
−∞

∞ ∞
√2 σ w e−w dw+ μ e−w dw
∫ ∫
2 2

¿
√ π −∞ √ π −∞
Step 4 :

We consider that
∞

∫ e−x d x=√ π
2

−∞

So,
∞

∫ e−w d w=√ π
2

−∞

Substitute to the last expression and we get

∞ ∞
√2 σ w e−w dw+ μ e−w dw
∫ ∫
2 2

¿
√ π −∞ √ π −∞
∞
√2 σ w e−w dw+ μ √ π
∫
2

¿
√ π −∞ √π
∞
√2 σ w e−w dw+ μ
∫
2

¿
√ π −∞
Step 5 :
∞

∫ w e−w dw
2

Now we focus on
−∞

−1
Let u=−w 2, then du=−2 w dw or du=w dw
2

Substitute to the integral

∞ ∞
−1
∫ we ∫ e u d u=−1 −1 −w
2 2
−w u
dw= e +C= e +C
−∞ 2 −∞ 2 2

Step 6 :

Now Substitute the limits of integration

| ( )
∞
−1 −w 2
−1 −∞ 1 −(−∞)
2 2

e = e − e =0−0=0
2 −∞ 2 2

So,
∞

∫ w e−w dw=0
2

−∞

Step 7:

Substitute the result to the expression

 ∞
√2 σ w e−w dw+ μ
∫
2

¿
√ π −∞

¿√
2σ
⋅0+ μ
√π
¿μ

Proved that
2
∞ − ( x−μ )
1
∫ xe
2
2σ
dx =μ
√2 π σ 2 −∞