+34 Hi!
I am working through a khan academy calculus course and I am a but stumped at one of their videos. I linked it below. It seems that they are using th terms "from above" and and "from below" interchangably. If not, what is that allows someone to determine the limit of a nested function when the two conditions of the theorem are not met (condition 1: there is no limit in the nexted function condition 2: the function does not continue past the stated x-value for which we are determining the limit)?
Thank you for your help in advance!
https://youtu.be/eK8T3CcSvwE
+118608 This video seems to make it more difficult than necessary but it is probably doing that on purpose.
If you get your head around difficult terminology it usually means you are learning properly, hopefully at a deeper level.
A better graph representation:
\(\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow 0}\;f(g(x))\\ \text{I would just have said that } g(0)=2 \;\;so\;\;\\ =\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow 0}\;f(2)\\ =0\)
Let's see what the video teacher was saying
\(\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow 0}\;f(g(x))\\ \)
Look at the g graph first.
I am just referring to red stuff that he talked about. He has not explained it well.
look at g function first (vertical axis is g, horizontal axis is x)
As x approaches 0 from the negative x side (he has called the left side the below side.)
g approaches 2 from higher g values,... from above
Now move over to the f function
If you are going to find f(g(x)) then the horizontal axis become g(x) or g NOT x and the vertical axis is f(g(x)) or just f for short.
So g is approaching 2 from above means that on the f graph, g is approaching 2 from the right side.
See if you can get your head around that.
LaTex
\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow 0}\;f(g(x))\\
\text{I would just have said that } g(0)=2 \;\;so\;\;\\
=\displaystyle \lim _{x\rightarrow 0}\;f(2)\\
=0
+34 Thank you Melody! It doesn't make sense YET, but I will re-read your explanation a few more times and I'm sure that it will!
