Finding hidden horizontal asymptote

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Given the following function:



$$f(x)= frac3x-1 sqrt3x^2-2x+1$$



I want to find the horizontal asymptotes of it, I let the function’s values go up to infinity and down go negative infinity in order to examine its behavior for growth and diminishing.
For calculating it neatly I’ve multiplied both the numerator and the denominator by $frac1x$.
Then squared it and took a root of it at the denominator in order to get it under the original square root. After doing that and examine what would happen I found one horizontal asymptote at $y= sqrt3$ , but according to the answers there’s another one in negative square root of three, what am I missing here?










share|cite|improve this question























  • It's great that you showed your work, but would you mind showing the exact steps?
    – Toby Mak
    Sep 2 at 11:38










  • @TobyMak it’ll be a pain in the arse writing it all through phone Latex :( the thing is that the numerator strived to 3 and the denominator to square root of three in both attempts to strive
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:40










  • You’re asking others to spend their time helping you. It’s only fair that you spend more of your own time, too.
    – amd
    Sep 2 at 20:45










  • @amd well that’s really a nonsensical thing to say.. It’s not that I didn’t try to convey my way of thinking at all. Not only that I did try, people understood my attempts completely by what I gave so that they granted me assistance based on it. Not only that this comment is nonsensical it’s rather futile because it isn’t helpful at all
    – Ozk
    Sep 3 at 4:12










  • Not at all. Just responding to your whining about having to do a bit of extra typing to help out someone who’s willing to help you.
    – amd
    Sep 3 at 4:34















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Given the following function:



$$f(x)= frac3x-1 sqrt3x^2-2x+1$$



I want to find the horizontal asymptotes of it, I let the function’s values go up to infinity and down go negative infinity in order to examine its behavior for growth and diminishing.
For calculating it neatly I’ve multiplied both the numerator and the denominator by $frac1x$.
Then squared it and took a root of it at the denominator in order to get it under the original square root. After doing that and examine what would happen I found one horizontal asymptote at $y= sqrt3$ , but according to the answers there’s another one in negative square root of three, what am I missing here?










share|cite|improve this question























  • It's great that you showed your work, but would you mind showing the exact steps?
    – Toby Mak
    Sep 2 at 11:38










  • @TobyMak it’ll be a pain in the arse writing it all through phone Latex :( the thing is that the numerator strived to 3 and the denominator to square root of three in both attempts to strive
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:40










  • You’re asking others to spend their time helping you. It’s only fair that you spend more of your own time, too.
    – amd
    Sep 2 at 20:45










  • @amd well that’s really a nonsensical thing to say.. It’s not that I didn’t try to convey my way of thinking at all. Not only that I did try, people understood my attempts completely by what I gave so that they granted me assistance based on it. Not only that this comment is nonsensical it’s rather futile because it isn’t helpful at all
    – Ozk
    Sep 3 at 4:12










  • Not at all. Just responding to your whining about having to do a bit of extra typing to help out someone who’s willing to help you.
    – amd
    Sep 3 at 4:34













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Given the following function:



$$f(x)= frac3x-1 sqrt3x^2-2x+1$$



I want to find the horizontal asymptotes of it, I let the function’s values go up to infinity and down go negative infinity in order to examine its behavior for growth and diminishing.
For calculating it neatly I’ve multiplied both the numerator and the denominator by $frac1x$.
Then squared it and took a root of it at the denominator in order to get it under the original square root. After doing that and examine what would happen I found one horizontal asymptote at $y= sqrt3$ , but according to the answers there’s another one in negative square root of three, what am I missing here?










share|cite|improve this question















Given the following function:



$$f(x)= frac3x-1 sqrt3x^2-2x+1$$



I want to find the horizontal asymptotes of it, I let the function’s values go up to infinity and down go negative infinity in order to examine its behavior for growth and diminishing.
For calculating it neatly I’ve multiplied both the numerator and the denominator by $frac1x$.
Then squared it and took a root of it at the denominator in order to get it under the original square root. After doing that and examine what would happen I found one horizontal asymptote at $y= sqrt3$ , but according to the answers there’s another one in negative square root of three, what am I missing here?







calculus limits functions asymptotics graphing-functions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 2 at 11:41

























asked Sep 2 at 11:33









Ozk

1126




1126











  • It's great that you showed your work, but would you mind showing the exact steps?
    – Toby Mak
    Sep 2 at 11:38










  • @TobyMak it’ll be a pain in the arse writing it all through phone Latex :( the thing is that the numerator strived to 3 and the denominator to square root of three in both attempts to strive
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:40










  • You’re asking others to spend their time helping you. It’s only fair that you spend more of your own time, too.
    – amd
    Sep 2 at 20:45










  • @amd well that’s really a nonsensical thing to say.. It’s not that I didn’t try to convey my way of thinking at all. Not only that I did try, people understood my attempts completely by what I gave so that they granted me assistance based on it. Not only that this comment is nonsensical it’s rather futile because it isn’t helpful at all
    – Ozk
    Sep 3 at 4:12










  • Not at all. Just responding to your whining about having to do a bit of extra typing to help out someone who’s willing to help you.
    – amd
    Sep 3 at 4:34

















  • It's great that you showed your work, but would you mind showing the exact steps?
    – Toby Mak
    Sep 2 at 11:38










  • @TobyMak it’ll be a pain in the arse writing it all through phone Latex :( the thing is that the numerator strived to 3 and the denominator to square root of three in both attempts to strive
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:40










  • You’re asking others to spend their time helping you. It’s only fair that you spend more of your own time, too.
    – amd
    Sep 2 at 20:45










  • @amd well that’s really a nonsensical thing to say.. It’s not that I didn’t try to convey my way of thinking at all. Not only that I did try, people understood my attempts completely by what I gave so that they granted me assistance based on it. Not only that this comment is nonsensical it’s rather futile because it isn’t helpful at all
    – Ozk
    Sep 3 at 4:12










  • Not at all. Just responding to your whining about having to do a bit of extra typing to help out someone who’s willing to help you.
    – amd
    Sep 3 at 4:34
















It's great that you showed your work, but would you mind showing the exact steps?
– Toby Mak
Sep 2 at 11:38




It's great that you showed your work, but would you mind showing the exact steps?
– Toby Mak
Sep 2 at 11:38












@TobyMak it’ll be a pain in the arse writing it all through phone Latex :( the thing is that the numerator strived to 3 and the denominator to square root of three in both attempts to strive
– Ozk
Sep 2 at 11:40




@TobyMak it’ll be a pain in the arse writing it all through phone Latex :( the thing is that the numerator strived to 3 and the denominator to square root of three in both attempts to strive
– Ozk
Sep 2 at 11:40












You’re asking others to spend their time helping you. It’s only fair that you spend more of your own time, too.
– amd
Sep 2 at 20:45




You’re asking others to spend their time helping you. It’s only fair that you spend more of your own time, too.
– amd
Sep 2 at 20:45












@amd well that’s really a nonsensical thing to say.. It’s not that I didn’t try to convey my way of thinking at all. Not only that I did try, people understood my attempts completely by what I gave so that they granted me assistance based on it. Not only that this comment is nonsensical it’s rather futile because it isn’t helpful at all
– Ozk
Sep 3 at 4:12




@amd well that’s really a nonsensical thing to say.. It’s not that I didn’t try to convey my way of thinking at all. Not only that I did try, people understood my attempts completely by what I gave so that they granted me assistance based on it. Not only that this comment is nonsensical it’s rather futile because it isn’t helpful at all
– Ozk
Sep 3 at 4:12












Not at all. Just responding to your whining about having to do a bit of extra typing to help out someone who’s willing to help you.
– amd
Sep 3 at 4:34





Not at all. Just responding to your whining about having to do a bit of extra typing to help out someone who’s willing to help you.
– amd
Sep 3 at 4:34











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










The shortest way is with equivalents:



$3x^2-2x+1sim_pminfty3x^2$, $;3x-1sim_pminfty3x$, so
$$ frac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1sim_pminftyfrac3xsqrt3x^2=sqrt3,frac x=sqrt3,operatornamesgnx. $$






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:46










  • It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
    – Bernard
    Sep 2 at 11:48











  • But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 17:51










  • @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
    – Bernard
    Sep 2 at 18:32











  • Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 19:40

















up vote
3
down vote













When we take $;xto -infty;$, we must change sign, otherwise that thing can not go into a square root (or any even root), thus: for $;x<<0;$, we have



$$frac-frac1x-frac1xcdotfrac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1=frac-3+frac1xsqrt3-frac2x+frac1x^2xrightarrow[xto-infty]frac-3sqrt3=-sqrt3$$



Remember, $;sqrtx^2=|x|;$ , and thus: if $;x<0;$ , then $;sqrtx^2=-x;$ ...






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Your method works great when $x to infty$.



    When $xto -infty$, you have to be a bit more careful. For $xto -infty$, we have eventually $x < 0$, so that $x = -|x| = -sqrtx^2$, giving rise to the other horizontal asymptote.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 11:43










    • @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
      – Sobi
      Sep 2 at 11:44

















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Note that the bottom is always positive but the top changes sign as your $x$ goes over $x=1/3$



    Thus on the positive side you get a posives limit and on the negative side you get a negative limit.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 19:44










    • Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 19:46










    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2902624%2ffinding-hidden-horizontal-asymptote%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    The shortest way is with equivalents:



    $3x^2-2x+1sim_pminfty3x^2$, $;3x-1sim_pminfty3x$, so
    $$ frac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1sim_pminftyfrac3xsqrt3x^2=sqrt3,frac x=sqrt3,operatornamesgnx. $$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 11:46










    • It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 11:48











    • But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 17:51










    • @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 18:32











    • Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 19:40














    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    The shortest way is with equivalents:



    $3x^2-2x+1sim_pminfty3x^2$, $;3x-1sim_pminfty3x$, so
    $$ frac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1sim_pminftyfrac3xsqrt3x^2=sqrt3,frac x=sqrt3,operatornamesgnx. $$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 11:46










    • It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 11:48











    • But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 17:51










    • @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 18:32











    • Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 19:40












    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted






    The shortest way is with equivalents:



    $3x^2-2x+1sim_pminfty3x^2$, $;3x-1sim_pminfty3x$, so
    $$ frac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1sim_pminftyfrac3xsqrt3x^2=sqrt3,frac x=sqrt3,operatornamesgnx. $$






    share|cite|improve this answer












    The shortest way is with equivalents:



    $3x^2-2x+1sim_pminfty3x^2$, $;3x-1sim_pminfty3x$, so
    $$ frac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1sim_pminftyfrac3xsqrt3x^2=sqrt3,frac x=sqrt3,operatornamesgnx. $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Sep 2 at 11:45









    Bernard

    112k635104




    112k635104











    • What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 11:46










    • It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 11:48











    • But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 17:51










    • @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 18:32











    • Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 19:40
















    • What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 11:46










    • It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 11:48











    • But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 17:51










    • @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
      – Bernard
      Sep 2 at 18:32











    • Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
      – Ozk
      Sep 2 at 19:40















    What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:46




    What’s that super super complicated but efficient method?
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 11:46












    It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
    – Bernard
    Sep 2 at 11:48





    It's not complicated. It uses the basics of asymptotic calculus (big O, little o, equivalents functions, &c.)
    – Bernard
    Sep 2 at 11:48













    But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 17:51




    But it doesn’t really make it any simpler because I have to evaluate the lim of x over absolute value of x in both cases
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 17:51












    @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
    – Bernard
    Sep 2 at 18:32





    @Ozk: This quotient is the sign function, as I wrote it. It is constant, equal to $1$ on $mathbf R_+$, to $-1$ on $mathbf R_-$. I don't think this limit is so hard…
    – Bernard
    Sep 2 at 18:32













    Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 19:40




    Looked up for its graph, that’s very simple indeed.
    – Ozk
    Sep 2 at 19:40










    up vote
    3
    down vote













    When we take $;xto -infty;$, we must change sign, otherwise that thing can not go into a square root (or any even root), thus: for $;x<<0;$, we have



    $$frac-frac1x-frac1xcdotfrac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1=frac-3+frac1xsqrt3-frac2x+frac1x^2xrightarrow[xto-infty]frac-3sqrt3=-sqrt3$$



    Remember, $;sqrtx^2=|x|;$ , and thus: if $;x<0;$ , then $;sqrtx^2=-x;$ ...






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      When we take $;xto -infty;$, we must change sign, otherwise that thing can not go into a square root (or any even root), thus: for $;x<<0;$, we have



      $$frac-frac1x-frac1xcdotfrac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1=frac-3+frac1xsqrt3-frac2x+frac1x^2xrightarrow[xto-infty]frac-3sqrt3=-sqrt3$$



      Remember, $;sqrtx^2=|x|;$ , and thus: if $;x<0;$ , then $;sqrtx^2=-x;$ ...






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        When we take $;xto -infty;$, we must change sign, otherwise that thing can not go into a square root (or any even root), thus: for $;x<<0;$, we have



        $$frac-frac1x-frac1xcdotfrac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1=frac-3+frac1xsqrt3-frac2x+frac1x^2xrightarrow[xto-infty]frac-3sqrt3=-sqrt3$$



        Remember, $;sqrtx^2=|x|;$ , and thus: if $;x<0;$ , then $;sqrtx^2=-x;$ ...






        share|cite|improve this answer












        When we take $;xto -infty;$, we must change sign, otherwise that thing can not go into a square root (or any even root), thus: for $;x<<0;$, we have



        $$frac-frac1x-frac1xcdotfrac3x-1sqrt3x^2-2x+1=frac-3+frac1xsqrt3-frac2x+frac1x^2xrightarrow[xto-infty]frac-3sqrt3=-sqrt3$$



        Remember, $;sqrtx^2=|x|;$ , and thus: if $;x<0;$ , then $;sqrtx^2=-x;$ ...







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Sep 2 at 11:43









        DonAntonio

        173k1486220




        173k1486220




















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Your method works great when $x to infty$.



            When $xto -infty$, you have to be a bit more careful. For $xto -infty$, we have eventually $x < 0$, so that $x = -|x| = -sqrtx^2$, giving rise to the other horizontal asymptote.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 11:43










            • @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
              – Sobi
              Sep 2 at 11:44














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Your method works great when $x to infty$.



            When $xto -infty$, you have to be a bit more careful. For $xto -infty$, we have eventually $x < 0$, so that $x = -|x| = -sqrtx^2$, giving rise to the other horizontal asymptote.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 11:43










            • @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
              – Sobi
              Sep 2 at 11:44












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Your method works great when $x to infty$.



            When $xto -infty$, you have to be a bit more careful. For $xto -infty$, we have eventually $x < 0$, so that $x = -|x| = -sqrtx^2$, giving rise to the other horizontal asymptote.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Your method works great when $x to infty$.



            When $xto -infty$, you have to be a bit more careful. For $xto -infty$, we have eventually $x < 0$, so that $x = -|x| = -sqrtx^2$, giving rise to the other horizontal asymptote.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Sep 2 at 11:41









            Sobi

            2,845417




            2,845417











            • By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 11:43










            • @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
              – Sobi
              Sep 2 at 11:44
















            • By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 11:43










            • @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
              – Sobi
              Sep 2 at 11:44















            By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
            – Ozk
            Sep 2 at 11:43




            By that you mean that when x is approaching negative infinity then 1 over x approaching zero from the negative side? By the way didn’t really understand that transformation with the absolute value
            – Ozk
            Sep 2 at 11:43












            @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
            – Sobi
            Sep 2 at 11:44




            @Ozk I just wanted to point out that, for negative $x$, you don't have $x = sqrtx^2$, but rather $x = -sqrtx^2$. Take for example $x = -1$. Then $sqrtx^2 = sqrt(-1)^2 = sqrt1 = 1$, so we need the minus sign in front.
            – Sobi
            Sep 2 at 11:44










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Note that the bottom is always positive but the top changes sign as your $x$ goes over $x=1/3$



            Thus on the positive side you get a posives limit and on the negative side you get a negative limit.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:44










            • Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:46














            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Note that the bottom is always positive but the top changes sign as your $x$ goes over $x=1/3$



            Thus on the positive side you get a posives limit and on the negative side you get a negative limit.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:44










            • Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:46












            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Note that the bottom is always positive but the top changes sign as your $x$ goes over $x=1/3$



            Thus on the positive side you get a posives limit and on the negative side you get a negative limit.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Note that the bottom is always positive but the top changes sign as your $x$ goes over $x=1/3$



            Thus on the positive side you get a posives limit and on the negative side you get a negative limit.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Sep 2 at 11:53









            Mohammad Riazi-Kermani

            31.3k41853




            31.3k41853











            • You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:44










            • Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:46
















            • You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:44










            • Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
              – Ozk
              Sep 2 at 19:46















            You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
            – Ozk
            Sep 2 at 19:44




            You’re right, but I don’t fully understand it, X approaches positive and negative infinity, why does its behavior around one third matters?
            – Ozk
            Sep 2 at 19:44












            Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
            – Ozk
            Sep 2 at 19:46




            Other than that, the sign kinda cuts off when I divide by x
            – Ozk
            Sep 2 at 19:46

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2902624%2ffinding-hidden-horizontal-asymptote%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

            Amount of Number Combinations to Reach a Sum of 10 With Integers 1-9 Using 2 or More Integers [closed]