fbpx
Wikipedia

L'Hôpital's rule

L'Hôpital's rule (/ˌlpˈtɑːl/, loh-pee-TAHL) or L'Hospital's rule, also known as Bernoulli's rule, is a mathematical theorem that allows evaluating limits of indeterminate forms using derivatives. Application (or repeated application) of the rule often converts an indeterminate form to an expression that can be easily evaluated by substitution. The rule is named after the 17th-century French mathematician Guillaume De l'Hôpital. Although the rule is often attributed to De l'Hôpital, the theorem was first introduced to him in 1694 by the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli.

Example application of l'Hôpital's rule to f(x) = sin(x) and g(x) = −0.5x: the function h(x) = f(x)/g(x) is undefined at x = 0, but can be completed to a continuous function on all of R by defining h(0) = f′(0)/g′(0) = −2.

De L'Hôpital's rule states that for functions f and g which are differentiable on an open interval I except possibly at a point c contained in I, if and for all x in I with xc, and exists, then

The differentiation of the numerator and denominator often simplifies the quotient or converts it to a limit that can be directly evaluated.

History edit

Guillaume de l'Hôpital (also written l'Hospital[a]) published this rule in his 1696 book Analyse des Infiniment Petits pour l'Intelligence des Lignes Courbes (literal translation: Analysis of the Infinitely Small for the Understanding of Curved Lines), the first textbook on differential calculus.[1][b] However, it is believed that the rule was discovered by the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli.[3]

General form edit

The general form of L'Hôpital's rule covers many cases. Let c and L be extended real numbers (i.e., real numbers, positive infinity, or negative infinity). Let I be an open interval containing c (for a two-sided limit) or an open interval with endpoint c (for a one-sided limit, or a limit at infinity if c is infinite). The real valued functions f and g are assumed to be differentiable on I except possibly at c, and additionally   on I except possibly at c. It is also assumed that   Thus, the rule applies to situations in which the ratio of the derivatives has a finite or infinite limit, but not to situations in which that ratio fluctuates permanently as x gets closer and closer to c.

If either

 
or
 
then
 
Although we have written xc throughout, the limits may also be one-sided limits (xc+ or xc), when c is a finite endpoint of I.


In the second case, the hypothesis that f diverges to infinity is not used in the proof (see note at the end of the proof section); thus, while the conditions of the rule are normally stated as above, the second sufficient condition for the rule's procedure to be valid can be more briefly stated as  

The hypothesis that   appears most commonly in the literature, but some authors sidestep this hypothesis by adding other hypotheses elsewhere. One method[4] is to define the limit of a function with the additional requirement that the limiting function is defined everywhere on the relevant interval I except possibly at c.[c] Another method[5] is to require that both f and g be differentiable everywhere on an interval containing c.

Cases where theorem cannot be applied (Necessity of conditions) edit

All four conditions for L'Hôpital's rule are necessary:

  1. Indeterminacy of form:   or   ; and
  2. Differentiability of functions:   and   are differentiable on an open interval   except possibly at a point   contained in   (the same point from the limit) ; and
  3. Non-zero derivative of denominator:   for all   in   with   ; and
  4. Existence of limit of the quotient of the derivatives:   exists.

Where one of the above conditions is not satisfied, L'Hôpital's rule is not valid in general, and so it cannot always be applied.

Form is not indeterminate edit

The necessity of the first condition can be seen by considering the counterexample where the functions are   and   and the limit is  .

The first condition is not satisfied for this counterexample because   and  . This means that the form is not indeterminate.

The second and third conditions are satisfied by   and  . The fourth condition is also satisfied with  .

But, L'Hôpital's rule fails in this counterexample, since  .

Differentiability of functions edit

Differentiability of functions is a requirement because if a function is not differentiable, then the derivative of the functions is not guaranteed to exist at each point in  . The fact that   is an open interval is grandfathered in from the hypothesis of the Cauchy's mean value theorem. The notable exception of the possibility of the functions being not differentiable at   exists because L'Hôpital's rule only requires the derivative to exist as the function approaches  ; the derivative does not need to be taken at  .

For example, let   ,  , and  . In this case,   is not differentiable at  . However, since   is differentiable everywhere except  , then   still exists. Thus, since

  and   exists, L'Hôpital's rule still holds.

Derivative of denominator is zero edit

The necessity of the condition that   near   can be seen by the following counterexample due to Otto Stolz.[6] Let   and   Then there is no limit for   as   However,

 

which tends to 0 as  . Further examples of this type were found by Ralph P. Boas Jr.[7]

Limit of derivatives does not exist edit

The requirement that the limit

 

exists is essential. Without this condition,   or   may exhibit undamped oscillations as   approaches  , in which case L'Hôpital's rule does not apply. For example, if  ,   and  , then

 

this expression does not approach a limit as   goes to  , since the cosine function oscillates between 1 and −1. But working with the original functions,   can be shown to exist:

 

In a case such as this, all that can be concluded is that

 

so that if the limit of   f/g exists, then it must lie between the inferior and superior limits of   . (In the example above, this is true, since 1 indeed lies between 0 and 2.)

Examples edit

  • Here is a basic example involving the exponential function, which involves the indeterminate form 0/0 at x = 0:
     
  • This is a more elaborate example involving 0/0. Applying L'Hôpital's rule a single time still results in an indeterminate form. In this case, the limit may be evaluated by applying the rule three times:
     
  • Here is an example involving /:
     
    Repeatedly apply L'Hôpital's rule until the exponent is zero (if n is an integer) or negative (if n is fractional) to conclude that the limit is zero.
  • Here is an example involving the indeterminate form 0 · ∞ (see below), which is rewritten as the form /:
     
  • Here is an example involving the mortgage repayment formula and 0/0. Let P be the principal (loan amount), r the interest rate per period and n the number of periods. When r is zero, the repayment amount per period is   (since only principal is being repaid); this is consistent with the formula for non-zero interest rates:
     
  • One can also use L'Hôpital's rule to prove the following theorem. If f is twice-differentiable in a neighborhood of x and that its second derivative is continuous on this neighbourhood, then
     
  • Sometimes L'Hôpital's rule is invoked in a tricky way: suppose   converges as x → ∞ and that   converges to positive or negative infinity. Then:

     
    and so,   exists and  

    The result remains true without the added hypothesis that   converges to positive or negative infinity, but the justification is then incomplete.

Complications edit

Sometimes L'Hôpital's rule does not lead to an answer in a finite number of steps unless some additional steps are applied. Examples include the following:

  • Two applications can lead to a return to the original expression that was to be evaluated:
     
    This situation can be dealt with by substituting   and noting that y goes to infinity as x goes to infinity; with this substitution, this problem can be solved with a single application of the rule:
     
    Alternatively, the numerator and denominator can both be multiplied by   at which point L'Hôpital's rule can immediately be applied successfully:[8]
     
  • An arbitrarily large number of applications may never lead to an answer even without repeating:
     
    This situation too can be dealt with by a transformation of variables, in this case  :
     
    Again, an alternative approach is to multiply numerator and denominator by   before applying L'Hôpital's rule:
     

A common pitfall is using L'Hôpital's rule with some circular reasoning to compute a derivative via a difference quotient. For example, consider the task of proving the derivative formula for powers of x:

 

Applying L'Hôpital's rule and finding the derivatives with respect to h of the numerator and the denominator yields nxn−1 as expected. However, differentiating the numerator requires the use of the very fact that is being proven. This is an example of begging the question, since one may not assume the fact to be proven during the course of the proof.

A similar pitfall occurs in the calculation of   Proving that differentiating   gives   involves calculating the difference quotient   in the first place, so a different method such as squeeze theorem must be used instead.

Other indeterminate forms edit

Other indeterminate forms, such as 1, 00, 0, 0 · ∞, and ∞ − ∞, can sometimes be evaluated using L'Hôpital's rule. For example, to evaluate a limit involving ∞ − ∞, convert the difference of two functions to a quotient:

 

where L'Hôpital's rule is applied when going from (1) to (2) and again when going from (3) to (4).

L'Hôpital's rule can be used on indeterminate forms involving exponents by using logarithms to "move the exponent down". Here is an example involving the indeterminate form 00:

 

It is valid to move the limit inside the exponential function because the exponential function is continuous. Now the exponent   has been "moved down". The limit   is of the indeterminate form 0 · ∞, but as shown in an example above, l'Hôpital's rule may be used to determine that

 

Thus

 

The following table lists the most common indeterminate forms, and the transformations for applying l'Hôpital's rule:

Indeterminate form Conditions Transformation to  
0/0  
 /     
     
     
     
     
     

Stolz–Cesàro theorem edit

The Stolz–Cesàro theorem is a similar result involving limits of sequences, but it uses finite difference operators rather than derivatives.

Geometric interpretation edit

Consider the curve in the plane whose x-coordinate is given by g(t) and whose y-coordinate is given by f(t), with both functions continuous, i.e., the locus of points of the form [g(t), f(t)]. Suppose f(c) = g(c) = 0. The limit of the ratio f(t)/g(t) as tc is the slope of the tangent to the curve at the point [g(c), f(c)] = [0,0]. The tangent to the curve at the point [g(t), f(t)] is given by [g′(t), f′(t)]. L'Hôpital's rule then states that the slope of the curve when t = c is the limit of the slope of the tangent to the curve as the curve approaches the origin, provided that this is defined.

Proof of L'Hôpital's rule edit

Special case edit

The proof of L'Hôpital's rule is simple in the case where f and g are continuously differentiable at the point c and where a finite limit is found after the first round of differentiation. It is not a proof of the general L'Hôpital's rule because it is stricter in its definition, requiring both continuous differentiability and that c be a real number. Since many common functions have continuous derivatives (e.g. polynomials, sine and cosine, exponential functions), it is a special case worthy of attention.

Suppose that f and g are continuously differentiable at a real number c, that  , and that  . Then

 

This follows from the difference-quotient definition of the derivative. The last equality follows from the continuity of the derivatives at c. The limit in the conclusion is not indeterminate because  .

The proof of a more general version of L'Hôpital's rule is given below.

General proof edit

The following proof is due to Taylor (1952), where a unified proof for the   and   indeterminate forms is given. Taylor notes that different proofs may be found in Lettenmeyer (1936) and Wazewski (1949).

Let f and g be functions satisfying the hypotheses in the General form section. Let   be the open interval in the hypothesis with endpoint c. Considering that   on this interval and g is continuous,   can be chosen smaller so that g is nonzero on  .[d]

For each x in the interval, define   and   as   ranges over all values between x and c. (The symbols inf and sup denote the infimum and supremum.)

From the differentiability of f and g on  , Cauchy's mean value theorem ensures that for any two distinct points x and y in   there exists a   between x and y such that  . Consequently,   for all choices of distinct x and y in the interval. The value g(x)-g(y) is always nonzero for distinct x and y in the interval, for if it was not, the mean value theorem would imply the existence of a p between x and y such that g' (p)=0.

The definition of m(x) and M(x) will result in an extended real number, and so it is possible for them to take on the values ±∞. In the following two cases, m(x) and M(x) will establish bounds on the ratio f/g.

Case 1:  

For any x in the interval  , and point y between x and c,

 

and therefore as y approaches c,   and   become zero, and so

 

Case 2:  

For every x in the interval  , define  . For every point y between x and c,

 

As y approaches c, both   and   become zero, and therefore

 

The limit superior and limit inferior are necessary since the existence of the limit of f/g has not yet been established.

It is also the case that

 

[e] and

  and  

In case 1, the squeeze theorem establishes that   exists and is equal to L. In the case 2, and the squeeze theorem again asserts that  , and so the limit   exists and is equal to L. This is the result that was to be proven.

In case 2 the assumption that f(x) diverges to infinity was not used within the proof. This means that if |g(x)| diverges to infinity as x approaches c and both f and g satisfy the hypotheses of L'Hôpital's rule, then no additional assumption is needed about the limit of f(x): It could even be the case that the limit of f(x) does not exist. In this case, L'Hopital's theorem is actually a consequence of Cesàro–Stolz.[9]

In the case when |g(x)| diverges to infinity as x approaches c and f(x) converges to a finite limit at c, then L'Hôpital's rule would be applicable, but not absolutely necessary, since basic limit calculus will show that the limit of f(x)/g(x) as x approaches c must be zero.

Corollary edit

A simple but very useful consequence of L'Hopital's rule is a well-known criterion for differentiability. It states the following: suppose that f is continuous at a, and that   exists for all x in some open interval containing a, except perhaps for  . Suppose, moreover, that   exists. Then   also exists and

 

In particular, f' is also continuous at a.

Proof edit

Consider the functions   and  . The continuity of f at a tells us that  . Moreover,   since a polynomial function is always continuous everywhere. Applying L'Hopital's rule shows that  .

See also edit

Notes edit

  1. ^ In the 17th and 18th centuries, the name was commonly spelled "l'Hospital", and he himself spelled his name that way. Since then, French spellings have changed: the silent 's' has been removed and replaced with a circumflex over the preceding vowel.
  2. ^ "Proposition I. Problême. Soit une ligne courbe AMD (AP = x, PM = y, AB = a [see Figure 130] ) telle que la valeur de l'appliquée y soit exprimée par une fraction, dont le numérateur & le dénominateur deviennent chacun zero lorsque x = a, c'est à dire lorsque le point P tombe sur le point donné B. On demande quelle doit être alors la valeur de l'appliquée BD. [Solution: ]...si l'on prend la difference du numérateur, & qu'on la divise par la difference du denominateur, apres avoir fait x = a = Ab ou AB, l'on aura la valeur cherchée de l'appliquée bd ou BD." Translation : "Let there be a curve AMD (where AP = X, PM = y, AB = a) such that the value of the ordinate y is expressed by a fraction whose numerator and denominator each become zero when x = a; that is, when the point P falls on the given point B. One asks what shall then be the value of the ordinate BD. [Solution: ]... if one takes the differential of the numerator and if one divides it by the differential of the denominator, after having set x = a = Ab or AB, one will have the value [that was] sought of the ordinate bd or BD."[2]
  3. ^ The functional analysis definition of the limit of a function does not require the existence of such an interval.
  4. ^ Since g' is nonzero and g is continuous on the interval, it is impossible for g to be zero more than once on the interval. If it had two zeros, the mean value theorem would assert the existence of a point p in the interval between the zeros such that g' (p) = 0. So either g is already nonzero on the interval, or else the interval can be reduced in size so as not to contain the single zero of g.
  5. ^ The limits   and   both exist as they feature nondecreasing and nonincreasing functions of x, respectively. Consider a sequence  . Then  , as the inequality holds for each i; this yields the inequalities   The next step is to show  . Fix a sequence of numbers   such that  , and a sequence  . For each i, choose   such that  , by the definition of  . Thus
     
    as desired. The argument that   is similar.

References edit

  1. ^ O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F. "De L'Hopital biography". The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. Scotland: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St Andrews. Retrieved 21 December 2008.
  2. ^ L'Hospital (1696). Analyse des infiniment petits. pp. 145–146.
  3. ^ Boyer, Carl B.; Merzbach, Uta C. (2011). A History of Mathematics (3rd illustrated ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-470-63056-3. Extract of page 321
  4. ^ (Chatterjee 2005, p. 291)
  5. ^ (Krantz 2004, p.79)
  6. ^ Stolz, Otto (1879). "Ueber die Grenzwerthe der Quotienten" [About the limits of quotients]. Mathematische Annalen (in German). 15 (3–4): 556–559. doi:10.1007/bf02086277. S2CID 122473933.
  7. ^ Boas Jr., Ralph P. (1986). "Counterexamples to L'Hopital's Rule". American Mathematical Monthly. 93 (8): 644–645. doi:10.1080/00029890.1986.11971912. JSTOR 2322330.
  8. ^ Multiplying by   instead yields a solution to the limit without need for l'Hôpital's rule.
  9. ^ "L'Hopital's Theorem". IMOmath. International Mathematical Olympiad.

Sources edit

  • Chatterjee, Dipak (2005), Real Analysis, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd, ISBN 81-203-2678-4
  • Krantz, Steven G. (2004), A handbook of real variables. With applications to differential equations and Fourier analysis, Boston, MA: Birkhäuser Boston Inc., pp. xiv+201, doi:10.1007/978-0-8176-8128-9, ISBN 0-8176-4329-X, MR 2015447
  • Lettenmeyer, F. (1936), "Über die sogenannte Hospitalsche Regel", Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1936 (174): 246–247, doi:10.1515/crll.1936.174.246, S2CID 199546754
  • Taylor, A. E. (1952), "L'Hospital's rule", Amer. Math. Monthly, 59 (1): 20–24, doi:10.2307/2307183, ISSN 0002-9890, JSTOR 2307183, MR 0044602
  • Wazewski, T. (1949), "Quelques démonstrations uniformes pour tous les cas du théorème de l'Hôpital. Généralisations", Prace Mat.-Fiz. (in French), 47: 117–128, MR 0034430

hôpital, rule, ɑː, tahl, hospital, rule, also, known, bernoulli, rule, mathematical, theorem, that, allows, evaluating, limits, indeterminate, forms, using, derivatives, application, repeated, application, rule, often, converts, indeterminate, form, expression. L Hopital s rule ˌ l oʊ p iː ˈ t ɑː l loh pee TAHL or L Hospital s rule also known as Bernoulli s rule is a mathematical theorem that allows evaluating limits of indeterminate forms using derivatives Application or repeated application of the rule often converts an indeterminate form to an expression that can be easily evaluated by substitution The rule is named after the 17th century French mathematician Guillaume De l Hopital Although the rule is often attributed to De l Hopital the theorem was first introduced to him in 1694 by the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli Example application of l Hopital s rule to f x sin x and g x 0 5x the function h x f x g x is undefined at x 0 but can be completed to a continuous function on all of R by defining h 0 f 0 g 0 2 De L Hopital s rule states that for functions f and g which are differentiable on an open interval I except possibly at a point c contained in I if lim x c f x lim x c g x 0 or lim x c g x textstyle lim limits x to c f x lim limits x to c g x 0 text or lim limits x to c g x pm infty and g x 0 textstyle g x neq 0 for all x in I with x c and lim x c f x g x textstyle lim limits x to c frac f x g x exists then lim x c f x g x lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x lim x to c frac f x g x The differentiation of the numerator and denominator often simplifies the quotient or converts it to a limit that can be directly evaluated Contents 1 History 2 General form 3 Cases where theorem cannot be applied Necessity of conditions 3 1 Form is not indeterminate 3 2 Differentiability of functions 3 3 Derivative of denominator is zero 3 4 Limit of derivatives does not exist 4 Examples 5 Complications 6 Other indeterminate forms 7 Stolz Cesaro theorem 8 Geometric interpretation 9 Proof of L Hopital s rule 9 1 Special case 9 2 General proof 10 Corollary 10 1 Proof 11 See also 12 Notes 13 References 13 1 SourcesHistory editGuillaume de l Hopital also written l Hospital a published this rule in his 1696 book Analyse des Infiniment Petits pour l Intelligence des Lignes Courbes literal translation Analysis of the Infinitely Small for the Understanding of Curved Lines the first textbook on differential calculus 1 b However it is believed that the rule was discovered by the Swiss mathematician Johann Bernoulli 3 General form editThe general form of L Hopital s rule covers many cases Let c and L be extended real numbers i e real numbers positive infinity or negative infinity Let I be an open interval containing c for a two sided limit or an open interval with endpoint c for a one sided limit or a limit at infinity if c is infinite The real valued functions f and g are assumed to be differentiable on I except possibly at c and additionally g x 0 displaystyle g x neq 0 nbsp on I except possibly at c It is also assumed that lim x c f x g x L textstyle lim limits x to c frac f x g x L nbsp Thus the rule applies to situations in which the ratio of the derivatives has a finite or infinite limit but not to situations in which that ratio fluctuates permanently as x gets closer and closer to c If eitherlim x c f x lim x c g x 0 displaystyle lim x to c f x lim x to c g x 0 nbsp orlim x c f x lim x c g x displaystyle lim x to c f x lim x to c g x infty nbsp thenlim x c f x g x L displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x L nbsp Although we have written x c throughout the limits may also be one sided limits x c or x c when c is a finite endpoint of I In the second case the hypothesis that f diverges to infinity is not used in the proof see note at the end of the proof section thus while the conditions of the rule are normally stated as above the second sufficient condition for the rule s procedure to be valid can be more briefly stated as lim x c g x textstyle lim x to c g x infty nbsp The hypothesis that g x 0 displaystyle g x neq 0 nbsp appears most commonly in the literature but some authors sidestep this hypothesis by adding other hypotheses elsewhere One method 4 is to define the limit of a function with the additional requirement that the limiting function is defined everywhere on the relevant interval I except possibly at c c Another method 5 is to require that both f and g be differentiable everywhere on an interval containing c Cases where theorem cannot be applied Necessity of conditions editAll four conditions for L Hopital s rule are necessary Indeterminacy of form lim x c f x lim x c g x 0 displaystyle lim x to c f x lim x to c g x 0 nbsp or displaystyle pm infty nbsp and Differentiability of functions f x displaystyle f x nbsp and g x displaystyle g x nbsp are differentiable on an open interval I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp except possibly at a point c displaystyle c nbsp contained in I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp the same point from the limit and Non zero derivative of denominator g x 0 displaystyle g x neq 0 nbsp for all x displaystyle x nbsp in I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp with x c displaystyle x neq c nbsp and Existence of limit of the quotient of the derivatives lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp exists Where one of the above conditions is not satisfied L Hopital s rule is not valid in general and so it cannot always be applied Form is not indeterminate edit The necessity of the first condition can be seen by considering the counterexample where the functions are f x x 1 displaystyle f x x 1 nbsp and g x 2 x 1 displaystyle g x 2x 1 nbsp and the limit is x 1 displaystyle x to 1 nbsp The first condition is not satisfied for this counterexample because lim x 1 f x lim x 1 x 1 1 1 2 0 displaystyle lim x to 1 f x lim x to 1 x 1 1 1 2 neq 0 nbsp and lim x 1 g x lim x 1 2 x 1 2 1 1 3 0 displaystyle lim x to 1 g x lim x to 1 2x 1 2 1 1 3 neq 0 nbsp This means that the form is not indeterminate The second and third conditions are satisfied by f x displaystyle f x nbsp and g x displaystyle g x nbsp The fourth condition is also satisfied with lim x 1 f x g x lim x 1 x 1 2 x 1 lim x 1 1 2 1 2 displaystyle lim x to 1 frac f x g x lim x to 1 frac x 1 2x 1 lim x to 1 frac 1 2 frac 1 2 nbsp But L Hopital s rule fails in this counterexample since lim x 1 f x g x lim x 1 x 1 2 x 1 lim x 1 x 1 lim x 1 2 x 1 2 3 1 2 lim x 1 f x g x displaystyle lim x to 1 frac f x g x lim x to 1 frac x 1 2x 1 frac lim x to 1 x 1 lim x to 1 2x 1 frac 2 3 neq frac 1 2 lim x to 1 frac f x g x nbsp Differentiability of functions edit Differentiability of functions is a requirement because if a function is not differentiable then the derivative of the functions is not guaranteed to exist at each point in I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp The fact that I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp is an open interval is grandfathered in from the hypothesis of the Cauchy s mean value theorem The notable exception of the possibility of the functions being not differentiable at c displaystyle c nbsp exists because L Hopital s rule only requires the derivative to exist as the function approaches c displaystyle c nbsp the derivative does not need to be taken at c displaystyle c nbsp For example let f x sin x x 0 1 x 0 displaystyle f x begin cases sin x amp x neq 0 1 amp x 0 end cases nbsp g x x displaystyle g x x nbsp and c 0 displaystyle c 0 nbsp In this case f x displaystyle f x nbsp is not differentiable at c displaystyle c nbsp However since f x displaystyle f x nbsp is differentiable everywhere except c displaystyle c nbsp then lim x c f x displaystyle lim x to c f x nbsp still exists Thus sincelim x c f x g x 0 0 displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x frac 0 0 nbsp and lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp exists L Hopital s rule still holds Derivative of denominator is zero edit The necessity of the condition that g x 0 displaystyle g x neq 0 nbsp near c displaystyle c nbsp can be seen by the following counterexample due to Otto Stolz 6 Let f x x sin x cos x displaystyle f x x sin x cos x nbsp and g x f x e sin x displaystyle g x f x e sin x nbsp Then there is no limit for f x g x displaystyle f x g x nbsp as x displaystyle x to infty nbsp However f x g x 2 cos 2 x 2 cos 2 x e sin x x sin x cos x e sin x cos x 2 cos x 2 cos x x sin x cos x e sin x displaystyle begin aligned frac f x g x amp frac 2 cos 2 x 2 cos 2 x e sin x x sin x cos x e sin x cos x amp frac 2 cos x 2 cos x x sin x cos x e sin x end aligned nbsp which tends to 0 as x displaystyle x to infty nbsp Further examples of this type were found by Ralph P Boas Jr 7 Limit of derivatives does not exist edit The requirement that the limit lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp exists is essential Without this condition f displaystyle f nbsp or g displaystyle g nbsp may exhibit undamped oscillations as x displaystyle x nbsp approaches c displaystyle c nbsp in which case L Hopital s rule does not apply For example if f x x sin x displaystyle f x x sin x nbsp g x x displaystyle g x x nbsp and c displaystyle c pm infty nbsp then f x g x 1 cos x 1 displaystyle frac f x g x frac 1 cos x 1 nbsp this expression does not approach a limit as x displaystyle x nbsp goes to c displaystyle c nbsp since the cosine function oscillates between 1 and 1 But working with the original functions lim x f x g x displaystyle lim x to infty frac f x g x nbsp can be shown to exist lim x f x g x lim x x sin x x lim x 1 sin x x 1 lim x sin x x 1 0 1 displaystyle lim x to infty frac f x g x lim x to infty left frac x sin x x right lim x to infty left 1 frac sin x x right 1 lim x to infty left frac sin x x right 1 0 1 nbsp In a case such as this all that can be concluded is that lim inf x c f x g x lim inf x c f x g x lim sup x c f x g x lim sup x c f x g x displaystyle liminf x to c frac f x g x leq liminf x to c frac f x g x leq limsup x to c frac f x g x leq limsup x to c frac f x g x nbsp so that if the limit of f g textstyle frac f g nbsp f g exists then it must lie between the inferior and superior limits of f g textstyle frac f g nbsp In the example above this is true since 1 indeed lies between 0 and 2 Examples editHere is a basic example involving the exponential function which involves the indeterminate form 0 0 at x 0 lim x 0 e x 1 x 2 x lim x 0 d d x e x 1 d d x x 2 x lim x 0 e x 2 x 1 1 displaystyle begin aligned lim x to 0 frac e x 1 x 2 x amp lim x to 0 frac frac d dx e x 1 frac d dx x 2 x 4pt amp lim x to 0 frac e x 2x 1 4pt amp 1 end aligned nbsp This is a more elaborate example involving 0 0 Applying L Hopital s rule a single time still results in an indeterminate form In this case the limit may be evaluated by applying the rule three times lim x 0 2 sin x sin 2 x x sin x lim x 0 2 cos x 2 cos 2 x 1 cos x lim x 0 2 sin x 4 sin 2 x sin x lim x 0 2 cos x 8 cos 2 x cos x 2 8 1 6 displaystyle begin aligned lim x to 0 frac 2 sin x sin 2x x sin x amp lim x to 0 frac 2 cos x 2 cos 2x 1 cos x 4pt amp lim x to 0 frac 2 sin x 4 sin 2x sin x 4pt amp lim x to 0 frac 2 cos x 8 cos 2x cos x 4pt amp frac 2 8 1 4pt amp 6 end aligned nbsp Here is an example involving lim x x n e x lim x x n e x lim x n x n 1 e x n lim x x n 1 e x displaystyle lim x to infty x n cdot e x lim x to infty frac x n e x lim x to infty frac nx n 1 e x n cdot lim x to infty frac x n 1 e x nbsp Repeatedly apply L Hopital s rule until the exponent is zero if n is an integer or negative if n is fractional to conclude that the limit is zero Here is an example involving the indeterminate form 0 see below which is rewritten as the form lim x 0 x ln x lim x 0 ln x 1 x lim x 0 1 x 1 x 2 lim x 0 x 0 displaystyle lim x to 0 x ln x lim x to 0 frac ln x frac 1 x lim x to 0 frac frac 1 x frac 1 x 2 lim x to 0 x 0 nbsp Here is an example involving the mortgage repayment formula and 0 0 Let P be the principal loan amount r the interest rate per period and n the number of periods When r is zero the repayment amount per period is P n displaystyle frac P n nbsp since only principal is being repaid this is consistent with the formula for non zero interest rates lim r 0 P r 1 r n 1 r n 1 P lim r 0 1 r n r n 1 r n 1 n 1 r n 1 P n displaystyle begin aligned lim r to 0 frac Pr 1 r n 1 r n 1 amp P lim r to 0 frac 1 r n rn 1 r n 1 n 1 r n 1 4pt amp frac P n end aligned nbsp One can also use L Hopital s rule to prove the following theorem If f is twice differentiable in a neighborhood of x and that its second derivative is continuous on this neighbourhood then lim h 0 f x h f x h 2 f x h 2 lim h 0 f x h f x h 2 h lim h 0 f x h f x h 2 f x displaystyle begin aligned lim h to 0 frac f x h f x h 2f x h 2 amp lim h to 0 frac f x h f x h 2h 4pt amp lim h to 0 frac f x h f x h 2 4pt amp f x end aligned nbsp Sometimes L Hopital s rule is invoked in a tricky way suppose f x f x displaystyle f x f x nbsp converges as x and that e x f x displaystyle e x cdot f x nbsp converges to positive or negative infinity Then lim x f x lim x e x f x e x lim x e x f x f x e x lim x f x f x displaystyle lim x to infty f x lim x to infty frac e x cdot f x e x lim x to infty frac e x bigl f x f x bigr e x lim x to infty bigl f x f x bigr nbsp and so lim x f x textstyle lim x to infty f x nbsp exists and lim x f x 0 textstyle lim x to infty f x 0 nbsp The result remains true without the added hypothesis that e x f x displaystyle e x cdot f x nbsp converges to positive or negative infinity but the justification is then incomplete Complications editSometimes L Hopital s rule does not lead to an answer in a finite number of steps unless some additional steps are applied Examples include the following Two applications can lead to a return to the original expression that was to be evaluated lim x e x e x e x e x lim x e x e x e x e x lim x e x e x e x e x displaystyle lim x to infty frac e x e x e x e x lim x to infty frac e x e x e x e x lim x to infty frac e x e x e x e x cdots nbsp This situation can be dealt with by substituting y e x displaystyle y e x nbsp and noting that y goes to infinity as x goes to infinity with this substitution this problem can be solved with a single application of the rule lim x e x e x e x e x lim y y y 1 y y 1 lim y 1 y 2 1 y 2 1 1 1 displaystyle lim x to infty frac e x e x e x e x lim y to infty frac y y 1 y y 1 lim y to infty frac 1 y 2 1 y 2 frac 1 1 1 nbsp Alternatively the numerator and denominator can both be multiplied by e x displaystyle e x nbsp at which point L Hopital s rule can immediately be applied successfully 8 lim x e x e x e x e x lim x e 2 x 1 e 2 x 1 lim x 2 e 2 x 2 e 2 x 1 displaystyle lim x to infty frac e x e x e x e x lim x to infty frac e 2x 1 e 2x 1 lim x to infty frac 2e 2x 2e 2x 1 nbsp An arbitrarily large number of applications may never lead to an answer even without repeating lim x x 1 2 x 1 2 x 1 2 x 1 2 lim x 1 2 x 1 2 1 2 x 3 2 1 2 x 1 2 1 2 x 3 2 lim x 1 4 x 3 2 3 4 x 5 2 1 4 x 3 2 3 4 x 5 2 displaystyle lim x to infty frac x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 lim x to infty frac frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 frac 1 2 x frac 3 2 frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 frac 1 2 x frac 3 2 lim x to infty frac frac 1 4 x frac 3 2 frac 3 4 x frac 5 2 frac 1 4 x frac 3 2 frac 3 4 x frac 5 2 cdots nbsp This situation too can be dealt with by a transformation of variables in this case y x displaystyle y sqrt x nbsp lim x x 1 2 x 1 2 x 1 2 x 1 2 lim y y y 1 y y 1 lim y 1 y 2 1 y 2 1 1 1 displaystyle lim x to infty frac x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 lim y to infty frac y y 1 y y 1 lim y to infty frac 1 y 2 1 y 2 frac 1 1 1 nbsp Again an alternative approach is to multiply numerator and denominator by x 1 2 displaystyle x 1 2 nbsp before applying L Hopital s rule lim x x 1 2 x 1 2 x 1 2 x 1 2 lim x x 1 x 1 lim x 1 1 1 displaystyle lim x to infty frac x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 x frac 1 2 lim x to infty frac x 1 x 1 lim x to infty frac 1 1 1 nbsp A common pitfall is using L Hopital s rule with some circular reasoning to compute a derivative via a difference quotient For example consider the task of proving the derivative formula for powers of x lim h 0 x h n x n h n x n 1 displaystyle lim h to 0 frac x h n x n h nx n 1 nbsp Applying L Hopital s rule and finding the derivatives with respect to h of the numerator and the denominator yields nxn 1 as expected However differentiating the numerator requires the use of the very fact that is being proven This is an example of begging the question since one may not assume the fact to be proven during the course of the proof A similar pitfall occurs in the calculation of lim x 0 sin x x 1 displaystyle lim x to 0 frac sin x x 1 nbsp Proving that differentiating sin x displaystyle sin x nbsp gives cos x displaystyle cos x nbsp involves calculating the difference quotient lim h 0 sin h h displaystyle lim h to 0 frac sin h h nbsp in the first place so a different method such as squeeze theorem must be used instead Other indeterminate forms editOther indeterminate forms such as 1 00 0 0 and can sometimes be evaluated using L Hopital s rule For example to evaluate a limit involving convert the difference of two functions to a quotient lim x 1 x x 1 1 ln x lim x 1 x ln x x 1 x 1 ln x 1 lim x 1 ln x x 1 x ln x 2 lim x 1 x ln x x 1 x ln x 3 lim x 1 1 ln x 1 1 ln x 4 lim x 1 1 ln x 2 ln x 1 2 displaystyle begin aligned lim x to 1 left frac x x 1 frac 1 ln x right amp lim x to 1 frac x cdot ln x x 1 x 1 cdot ln x amp quad 1 6pt amp lim x to 1 frac ln x frac x 1 x ln x amp quad 2 6pt amp lim x to 1 frac x cdot ln x x 1 x cdot ln x amp quad 3 6pt amp lim x to 1 frac 1 ln x 1 1 ln x amp quad 4 6pt amp lim x to 1 frac 1 ln x 2 ln x 6pt amp frac 1 2 end aligned nbsp where L Hopital s rule is applied when going from 1 to 2 and again when going from 3 to 4 L Hopital s rule can be used on indeterminate forms involving exponents by using logarithms to move the exponent down Here is an example involving the indeterminate form 00 lim x 0 x x lim x 0 e ln x x lim x 0 e x ln x e lim x 0 x ln x displaystyle lim x to 0 x x lim x to 0 e ln x x lim x to 0 e x cdot ln x e lim limits x to 0 x cdot ln x nbsp It is valid to move the limit inside the exponential function because the exponential function is continuous Now the exponent x displaystyle x nbsp has been moved down The limit lim x 0 x ln x displaystyle lim x to 0 x cdot ln x nbsp is of the indeterminate form 0 but as shown in an example above l Hopital s rule may be used to determine that lim x 0 x ln x 0 displaystyle lim x to 0 x cdot ln x 0 nbsp Thus lim x 0 x x e 0 1 displaystyle lim x to 0 x x e 0 1 nbsp The following table lists the most common indeterminate forms and the transformations for applying l Hopital s rule Indeterminate form Conditions Transformation to 0 0 displaystyle 0 0 nbsp 0 0 lim x c f x 0 lim x c g x 0 displaystyle lim x to c f x 0 lim x to c g x 0 nbsp displaystyle infty nbsp displaystyle infty nbsp lim x c f x lim x c g x displaystyle lim x to c f x infty lim x to c g x infty nbsp lim x c f x g x lim x c 1 g x 1 f x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x lim x to c frac 1 g x 1 f x nbsp 0 displaystyle 0 cdot infty nbsp lim x c f x 0 lim x c g x displaystyle lim x to c f x 0 lim x to c g x infty nbsp lim x c f x g x lim x c f x 1 g x displaystyle lim x to c f x g x lim x to c frac f x 1 g x nbsp displaystyle infty infty nbsp lim x c f x lim x c g x displaystyle lim x to c f x infty lim x to c g x infty nbsp lim x c f x g x lim x c 1 g x 1 f x 1 f x g x displaystyle lim x to c f x g x lim x to c frac 1 g x 1 f x 1 f x g x nbsp 0 0 displaystyle 0 0 nbsp lim x c f x 0 lim x c g x 0 displaystyle lim x to c f x 0 lim x to c g x 0 nbsp lim x c f x g x exp lim x c g x 1 ln f x displaystyle lim x to c f x g x exp lim x to c frac g x 1 ln f x nbsp 1 displaystyle 1 infty nbsp lim x c f x 1 lim x c g x displaystyle lim x to c f x 1 lim x to c g x infty nbsp lim x c f x g x exp lim x c ln f x 1 g x displaystyle lim x to c f x g x exp lim x to c frac ln f x 1 g x nbsp 0 displaystyle infty 0 nbsp lim x c f x lim x c g x 0 displaystyle lim x to c f x infty lim x to c g x 0 nbsp lim x c f x g x exp lim x c g x 1 ln f x displaystyle lim x to c f x g x exp lim x to c frac g x 1 ln f x nbsp Stolz Cesaro theorem editMain article Stolz Cesaro theorem The Stolz Cesaro theorem is a similar result involving limits of sequences but it uses finite difference operators rather than derivatives Geometric interpretation editConsider the curve in the plane whose x coordinate is given by g t and whose y coordinate is given by f t with both functions continuous i e the locus of points of the form g t f t Suppose f c g c 0 The limit of the ratio f t g t as t c is the slope of the tangent to the curve at the point g c f c 0 0 The tangent to the curve at the point g t f t is given by g t f t L Hopital s rule then states that the slope of the curve when t c is the limit of the slope of the tangent to the curve as the curve approaches the origin provided that this is defined Proof of L Hopital s rule editSpecial case edit The proof of L Hopital s rule is simple in the case where f and g are continuously differentiable at the point c and where a finite limit is found after the first round of differentiation It is not a proof of the general L Hopital s rule because it is stricter in its definition requiring both continuous differentiability and that c be a real number Since many common functions have continuous derivatives e g polynomials sine and cosine exponential functions it is a special case worthy of attention Suppose that f and g are continuously differentiable at a real number c that f c g c 0 displaystyle f c g c 0 nbsp and that g c 0 displaystyle g c neq 0 nbsp Then lim x c f x g x lim x c f x 0 g x 0 lim x c f x f c g x g c lim x c f x f c x c g x g c x c lim x c f x f c x c lim x c g x g c x c f c g c lim x c f x g x displaystyle begin aligned amp lim x to c frac f x g x lim x to c frac f x 0 g x 0 lim x to c frac f x f c g x g c 6pt amp lim x to c frac left frac f x f c x c right left frac g x g c x c right frac lim limits x to c left frac f x f c x c right lim limits x to c left frac g x g c x c right frac f c g c lim x to c frac f x g x end aligned nbsp This follows from the difference quotient definition of the derivative The last equality follows from the continuity of the derivatives at c The limit in the conclusion is not indeterminate because g c 0 displaystyle g c neq 0 nbsp The proof of a more general version of L Hopital s rule is given below General proof edit The following proof is due to Taylor 1952 where a unified proof for the 0 0 textstyle frac 0 0 nbsp and textstyle frac pm infty pm infty nbsp indeterminate forms is given Taylor notes that different proofs may be found in Lettenmeyer 1936 and Wazewski 1949 Let f and g be functions satisfying the hypotheses in the General form section Let I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp be the open interval in the hypothesis with endpoint c Considering that g x 0 displaystyle g x neq 0 nbsp on this interval and g is continuous I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp can be chosen smaller so that g is nonzero on I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp d For each x in the interval define m x inf f t g t displaystyle m x inf frac f t g t nbsp and M x sup f t g t displaystyle M x sup frac f t g t nbsp as t displaystyle t nbsp ranges over all values between x and c The symbols inf and sup denote the infimum and supremum From the differentiability of f and g on I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp Cauchy s mean value theorem ensures that for any two distinct points x and y in I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp there exists a 3 displaystyle xi nbsp between x and y such that f x f y g x g y f 3 g 3 displaystyle frac f x f y g x g y frac f xi g xi nbsp Consequently m x f x f y g x g y M x displaystyle m x leq frac f x f y g x g y leq M x nbsp for all choices of distinct x and y in the interval The value g x g y is always nonzero for distinct x and y in the interval for if it was not the mean value theorem would imply the existence of a p between x and y such that g p 0 The definition of m x and M x will result in an extended real number and so it is possible for them to take on the values In the following two cases m x and M x will establish bounds on the ratio f g Case 1 lim x c f x lim x c g x 0 displaystyle lim x to c f x lim x to c g x 0 nbsp For any x in the interval I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp and point y between x and c m x f x f y g x g y f x g x f y g x 1 g y g x M x displaystyle m x leq frac f x f y g x g y frac frac f x g x frac f y g x 1 frac g y g x leq M x nbsp and therefore as y approaches c f y g x displaystyle frac f y g x nbsp and g y g x displaystyle frac g y g x nbsp become zero and so m x f x g x M x displaystyle m x leq frac f x g x leq M x nbsp Case 2 lim x c g x displaystyle lim x to c g x infty nbsp For every x in the interval I displaystyle mathcal I nbsp define S x y y is between x and c displaystyle S x y mid y text is between x text and c nbsp For every point y between x and c m x f y f x g y g x f y g y f x g y 1 g x g y M x displaystyle m x leq frac f y f x g y g x frac frac f y g y frac f x g y 1 frac g x g y leq M x nbsp As y approaches c both f x g y displaystyle frac f x g y nbsp and g x g y displaystyle frac g x g y nbsp become zero and therefore m x lim inf y S x f y g y lim sup y S x f y g y M x displaystyle m x leq liminf y in S x frac f y g y leq limsup y in S x frac f y g y leq M x nbsp The limit superior and limit inferior are necessary since the existence of the limit of f g has not yet been established It is also the case that lim x c m x lim x c M x lim x c f x g x L displaystyle lim x to c m x lim x to c M x lim x to c frac f x g x L nbsp e and lim x c lim inf y S x f y g y lim inf x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c left liminf y in S x frac f y g y right liminf x to c frac f x g x nbsp and lim x c lim sup y S x f y g y lim sup x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c left limsup y in S x frac f y g y right limsup x to c frac f x g x nbsp In case 1 the squeeze theorem establishes that lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp exists and is equal to L In the case 2 and the squeeze theorem again asserts that lim inf x c f x g x lim sup x c f x g x L displaystyle liminf x to c frac f x g x limsup x to c frac f x g x L nbsp and so the limit lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp exists and is equal to L This is the result that was to be proven In case 2 the assumption that f x diverges to infinity was not used within the proof This means that if g x diverges to infinity as x approaches c and both f and g satisfy the hypotheses of L Hopital s rule then no additional assumption is needed about the limit of f x It could even be the case that the limit of f x does not exist In this case L Hopital s theorem is actually a consequence of Cesaro Stolz 9 In the case when g x diverges to infinity as x approaches c and f x converges to a finite limit at c then L Hopital s rule would be applicable but not absolutely necessary since basic limit calculus will show that the limit of f x g x as x approaches c must be zero Corollary editA simple but very useful consequence of L Hopital s rule is a well known criterion for differentiability It states the following suppose that f is continuous at a and that f x displaystyle f x nbsp exists for all x in some open interval containing a except perhaps for x a displaystyle x a nbsp Suppose moreover that lim x a f x displaystyle lim x to a f x nbsp exists Then f a displaystyle f a nbsp also exists and f a lim x a f x displaystyle f a lim x to a f x nbsp In particular f is also continuous at a Proof edit Consider the functions h x f x f a displaystyle h x f x f a nbsp and g x x a displaystyle g x x a nbsp The continuity of f at a tells us that lim x a h x 0 displaystyle lim x to a h x 0 nbsp Moreover lim x a g x 0 displaystyle lim x to a g x 0 nbsp since a polynomial function is always continuous everywhere Applying L Hopital s rule shows that f a lim x a f x f a x a lim x a h x g x lim x a f x displaystyle f a lim x to a frac f x f a x a lim x to a frac h x g x lim x to a f x nbsp See also editL Hopital controversyNotes edit In the 17th and 18th centuries the name was commonly spelled l Hospital and he himself spelled his name that way Since then French spellings have changed the silent s has been removed and replaced with a circumflex over the preceding vowel Proposition I Probleme Soit une ligne courbe AMD AP x PM y AB a see Figure 130 telle que la valeur de l appliquee y soit exprimee par une fraction dont le numerateur amp le denominateur deviennent chacun zero lorsque x a c est a dire lorsque le point P tombe sur le point donne B On demande quelle doit etre alors la valeur de l appliquee BD Solution si l on prend la difference du numerateur amp qu on la divise par la difference du denominateur apres avoir fait x a Ab ou AB l on aura la valeur cherchee de l appliquee bd ou BD Translation Let there be a curve AMD where AP X PM y AB a such that the value of the ordinate y is expressed by a fraction whose numerator and denominator each become zero when x a that is when the point P falls on the given point B One asks what shall then be the value of the ordinate BD Solution if one takes the differential of the numerator and if one divides it by the differential of the denominator after having set x a Ab or AB one will have the value that was sought of the ordinate bd or BD 2 The functional analysis definition of the limit of a function does not require the existence of such an interval Since g is nonzero and g is continuous on the interval it is impossible for g to be zero more than once on the interval If it had two zeros the mean value theorem would assert the existence of a point p in the interval between the zeros such that g p 0 So either g is already nonzero on the interval or else the interval can be reduced in size so as not to contain the single zero of g The limits lim x c m x displaystyle lim x to c m x nbsp and lim x c M x displaystyle lim x to c M x nbsp both exist as they feature nondecreasing and nonincreasing functions of x respectively Consider a sequence x i c displaystyle x i to c nbsp Then lim i m x i lim i f x i g x i lim i M x i displaystyle lim i m x i leq lim i frac f x i g x i leq lim i M x i nbsp as the inequality holds for each i this yields the inequalities lim x c m x lim x c f x g x lim x c M x displaystyle lim x to c m x leq lim x to c frac f x g x leq lim x to c M x nbsp The next step is to show lim x c M x lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c M x leq lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp Fix a sequence of numbers e i gt 0 displaystyle varepsilon i gt 0 nbsp such that lim i e i 0 displaystyle lim i varepsilon i 0 nbsp and a sequence x i c displaystyle x i to c nbsp For each i choose x i lt y i lt c displaystyle x i lt y i lt c nbsp such that f y i g y i e i sup x i lt 3 lt c f 3 g 3 displaystyle frac f y i g y i varepsilon i geq sup x i lt xi lt c frac f xi g xi nbsp by the definition of sup displaystyle sup nbsp Thus lim i M x i lim i f y i g y i e i lim i f y i g y i lim i e i lim i f y i g y i displaystyle begin aligned lim i M x i amp leq lim i frac f y i g y i varepsilon i amp lim i frac f y i g y i lim i varepsilon i amp lim i frac f y i g y i end aligned nbsp as desired The argument that lim x c m x lim x c f x g x displaystyle lim x to c m x geq lim x to c frac f x g x nbsp is similar References edit O Connor John J Robertson Edmund F De L Hopital biography The MacTutor History of Mathematics archive Scotland School of Mathematics and Statistics University of St Andrews Retrieved 21 December 2008 L Hospital 1696 Analyse des infiniment petits pp 145 146 Boyer Carl B Merzbach Uta C 2011 A History of Mathematics 3rd illustrated ed John Wiley amp Sons p 321 ISBN 978 0 470 63056 3 Extract of page 321 Chatterjee 2005 p 291 Krantz 2004 p 79 Stolz Otto 1879 Ueber die Grenzwerthe der Quotienten About the limits of quotients Mathematische Annalen in German 15 3 4 556 559 doi 10 1007 bf02086277 S2CID 122473933 Boas Jr Ralph P 1986 Counterexamples to L Hopital s Rule American Mathematical Monthly 93 8 644 645 doi 10 1080 00029890 1986 11971912 JSTOR 2322330 Multiplying by e x displaystyle e x nbsp instead yields a solution to the limit without need for l Hopital s rule L Hopital s Theorem IMOmath International Mathematical Olympiad Sources edit Chatterjee Dipak 2005 Real Analysis PHI Learning Pvt Ltd ISBN 81 203 2678 4 Krantz Steven G 2004 A handbook of real variables With applications to differential equations and Fourier analysis Boston MA Birkhauser Boston Inc pp xiv 201 doi 10 1007 978 0 8176 8128 9 ISBN 0 8176 4329 X MR 2015447 Lettenmeyer F 1936 Uber die sogenannte Hospitalsche Regel Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1936 174 246 247 doi 10 1515 crll 1936 174 246 S2CID 199546754 Taylor A E 1952 L Hospital s rule Amer Math Monthly 59 1 20 24 doi 10 2307 2307183 ISSN 0002 9890 JSTOR 2307183 MR 0044602 Wazewski T 1949 Quelques demonstrations uniformes pour tous les cas du theoreme de l Hopital Generalisations Prace Mat Fiz in French 47 117 128 MR 0034430 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title L 27Hopital 27s rule amp oldid 1219869246, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.