we generally use \[
\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to 0} \left( {1 + x^2 } \right)^{\frac{1}{{x^2 }}} = e
\]
how ever if exponent of a number approaching to \[
1^ +
\]approaches to infinite then resultant should approach to infinite

No that is not always true. A trivial example would be 0^x. In this case note that the base, i.e. (1+x^2) tends to 1 as x tends to 0. So the resultant expression doesn't approach infinity.

As x becomes smaller and smaller the exponent approaches infinity while the base, i.e. 1+x^2 gets closer and closer to 1. So, the net result can't be guessed by us like that.

By continuity of log, exp, and product, we have \[ \lim_{x\rightarrow 0} (1+x^2)^{1/x^4} = \lim_{x\rightarrow 0} ((1+x^2)^{1/x^2})^{\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}1/x^2} = e^{\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}1/x^2} = \infty \]

(1+x^2) is greater than 1 and its exponent i.e 1/x^2 approaches to infinite , then this limit should approach to infinity, but it is 'e'. I know 'e' can be easily proved used logarithms or infinite series expansion. but the confusion again lies with my former statement

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestNo that is not always true. A trivial example would be 0^x. In this case note that the base, i.e. (1+x^2) tends to 1 as x tends to 0. So the resultant expression doesn't approach infinity.

Log in to reply

but likewise \[ \mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to 0} \left( {1 + x^2 } \right)^{\frac{1}{{x^4 }}} {\rm{ approaches}}{\kern 1pt} \;{\rm{to}}\;{\rm{infinite}} \]

Log in to reply

As x becomes smaller and smaller the exponent approaches infinity while the base, i.e. 1+x^2 gets closer and closer to 1. So, the net result can't be guessed by us like that.

Log in to reply

By continuity of log, exp, and product, we have \[ \lim_{x\rightarrow 0} (1+x^2)^{1/x^4} = \lim_{x\rightarrow 0} ((1+x^2)^{1/x^2})^{\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}1/x^2} = e^{\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}1/x^2} = \infty \]

Log in to reply

Can you elaborate further?

Log in to reply

(1+x^2) is greater than 1 and its exponent i.e 1/x^2 approaches to infinite , then this limit should approach to infinity, but it is 'e'. I know 'e' can be easily proved used logarithms or infinite series expansion. but the confusion again lies with my former statement

Log in to reply

You're making assumptions about growth that aren't correct.

Log in to reply