3
$\begingroup$

Consider the following limit.

Limit[(a - Sqrt[a^2 + x])/(a^2 - a*Sqrt[a^2 - x]), x -> 0, Assumptions -> {a > 0}]

Mathematica 9.0.1.0 gives -1/a, which is the correct answer. Notice that this limit is not trivial to compute, because both the numerator and denominator vanish when x=0. Therefore, L'Hopital's rule is required here.

Now remove the assumption.

Limit[(a - Sqrt[a^2 + x])/(a^2 - a*Sqrt[a^2 - x]), x -> 0]

For this, Mathematica gives 1/a, which is incorrect for general a (although it is correct for a<0).

Is this last result a bug, or am I missing something?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ By elementary algebra, the function is equivalent to -((a + Sqrt[a^2 - x])/(a (a + Sqrt[a^2 + x]))), so L'Hôpital's rule is not strictly necessary. $\endgroup$
    – Michael E2
    Feb 9, 2014 at 19:00

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

This code should give you some insight as to why you are seeing this behavior:

Manipulate[Plot[(a - Sqrt[a^2 + x])/(a^2 - a*Sqrt[a^2 - x]), {x, -1, 1}], {a, -3, 3}]

When Assumptions -> {a > 0} is used, you get the correct limit. But when no assumptions are placed, Mathematica tries to evaluate the limit for a general complex $a$. This second result is not correct for $\Re(a) > 0$: The correct limit is $-1/a$ for $\Re(a) > 0$, and $1/a$ for $\Re(a) < 0$.

In general, limits whose values depend discontinuously on some parameter can be difficult for Mathematica to evaluate properly: see Calculating a limit with a result that is discontinuous in the parameters for example.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ If the result depends on the parameters, then shouldn't Mathematica refuse to evaluate without additional assumptions, and just return Limit[...]? $\endgroup$ Feb 9, 2014 at 20:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.