can anyone please prove that

lim (e^x-1)/x =1
x-o

or
derivative of e^x w.r.t. x is e^x

would really appreciate it....

Pat explaining here won't be very helpful especially when you have search engines like google. Read your book or search for L'Hopital Rule. I'm sure you'll pull yourself out of it. Try solving probles that involve L'Hopital Rule and slowly you'll get the vibe.

Good Luck once again!

i mean tei rule ....hopital wala...ahile samma padha chaina....so whats' the rule
so what does the rule say?


anyway thanks for the help with math.....
anyone with major in Psychology....
Explain how research on size constancy, restored vision, perceptual adaptation, and perceptual set helps to support and/or disprove John Locke's emphasis on the importance of learning in perception.?

hehe psychology. Actually just wanted to let loote know that using ln(x) is technically NOT the right derivation for the result pat wanted because ln(x) is an inverse function of e^x, whose derivative is simple to figure out ONCE THE DERIVATIVE OF e^x is figured out...hehehe asn an engieneer u don;t need to care abt that crap.....duct-tape is good enuff, eh?

Wat about sending an envelope addressed to your teacher so that we can write and send it directly to your teacher. Pat, I apprecaite your desire to learn from people, but dude, u gotta learn some things in a hard way.

" Explain how research on size constancy, restored vision, perceptual adaptation, and perceptual set helps to support and/or disprove John Locke's emphasis on the importance of learning in perception.?"
==> Research papers as such are given to students, not only to submit a double spaced 1000 page essay, but to learn the process of searching books in library, talking to professors to get help on topics and developing many other student development skills. Its good to take help from people, but you gotta be careful, to what extent you are asking for help. Are u putting any inputs? At least my teacher never helped me when I asked him a particular question the very first time, cause he wanted me to grasp the materials nicely by myself first.

Regarding the math problem, I don't mean to offend any of you guys. You guys are doing good job helping people around. But do make sure, to what extent are u guys helping new kids. But, literally doing his homework and posting it, thats against my student ethics.

ok i was about to go to bed, but TT stopped me...damn you!....."guru" of sajha hehehahahahahahaha

let me tell you one thing. i enjoy reading your posts. i find them very very interesting. i like people who think themselves "smarta$$es". and u being the mahabharat's "samaya-the time", i have to droop my head in front of ya. there is no way out. i adore u. i envy u ...u r the mann!!!. your long posts full of comedy and bs imaginations are worth reading. at least for me....hehehahahahaha


ok enough of bs.

let me get back to the mathematics....hmm....

see ,

i know exponential is an inverse function of logarithm. i know that, so technically i cannot assume it. I TOLD IT 10 times in this thread and i m repeating 11th time, for the sake of u, there are various methods from which the problem can be proved.

1) i m not resorting to the graphical and analytical approach here, coz it will blow out of Pat's mind if not yours. PAT IS A NEWBIE IN CALCULUS, so spare some mercy on him.

2) My very first post tells that an exponential function can be interpreted in terms of trigonometric functions and we can solve it through that track. he did not BOTHER to give it a shot.

3) i used logarithmic function as the "given assumed one" in the proof. what's wrong with it. if i follow the classical method then i have to interpret e^x in terms of binomial expansion. but all those expressions except the first term will be FUNCTION OF X AGAIN. so i cannot get rid of DEPENDENCY. TELL ME ONE DAMN FUNCTION OF X WHOSE EXPRESSION IS FREE FROM 'X, THEN I AM GONNA TALK WITH YOU'---> that's assignment-I for ya...





Loote

P.S.

YOU SAID:
hehehe asn an engieneer u don;t need to care abt that crap.....duct-tape is good enuff, eh?
=====
where is the coming from? YOU ARE FORTH PERSON HERE IN SAJHA, WHO JUDGE PEOPLE BY THEIR NICK.

himalayan tiger....

I respect your views dude. and it does resonate with mine. I took pat as my own brother (i dont have one :(. ). he pushed me for the solution and i had to do it. i know its all my badd.....

but nevertheless, i hope pat is in a learning mode and he will learn sincerely.


Loote

one damn function of x which is free from x....wow so challenging...

we'll here's one:
f(x)=1.

muahahahaha.

bedies, NO, you wont go into binomial expansion. it's not that bad loote. And sorry about the assumption. I regret being the forth? person in sajha who made an assumption about you. I just saiod that becuase think someone here referred to you as an engineer. Thats all.

But ironically you're the god knows what n-th(n>>>1000 for sure) person in sajha to assume that i think i'm a smart ass or anybody else for that matter just because his/her posts are long. I mean i dont mind if you think i am or even that you're makin fun of me.....but id like to think i'm not.
Thanks
TT

P.S. not everybody can flaunt their names. I've got a pretty nice one. So makin up a cpl of jokes abt it shouldn;t offend anyone should it now luutu?

hahahahahah TT....ping pong......i knew it was coming.....

ok let me make it short....have to wake up early tomorrow morning....as usual...."freaking life" ko sawal chha...hahahahahaha


f(x)=1 (oh, how i imagined 1 being a function of x hehe) ...pretty simple huh? hehehe.....i thought u could do better than that though. i was referring to standard functions. hehe...

sinx= function of x.
cosx=ditto
lnx=ditto
e^x==ditto.

so all of them are dependent. the dependency you were talking abt cannot be avoided here completely.

and that "not too bad" thing...may be for ya...not for PAT i m sure so let's drop it right away....moreover his proff told him to go for any "approximate" solution (TT you did not read all the postings did u? too bad hehe)

alrity...have to hit the bed now for sure....will see ya tomorrow ....

have fun in canada
i know its one heck of a place to be in..

and convey my regards to your VIRTUAL gf....

g;nite
Loote

P.S. mann....i wonder if George bush would be president if his name was "Doggy bush" :S

Engineers and #s ... They make a cute couple :-D

lim (e^x-1)/x =1
x-o (IS THIS X=0)?
or
derivative of e^x w.r.t. x is e^x
Then,
as x =0
lim lin (e^0-1)/0 =1
Anything to the power 0 = 1 thus (e^1-1)/0 =1
e^0/0 =1
e^0=1 (1/0) =1
1 =1*0
lim 1=0
=1

ok, sanjay just got 5 points..good job boy.

lim (e^x-1)/x =1
x-o what is this? strange symbol ???

L 'Hopital Rule: If h(x) = f(x)/g(x) and h(a) = 0/0 or (infinity)/(infinity) , both are differentable at a, then lim x --> a = f'(a)/g'(a)
for example, if h(x) = (x-1)/logx, which is in 0/0 form at x=1, and both the top and bottom functions are differentiable, then by L'hopital rule, lim x-->1 h(x) = 1/(1/x) = 1

Got it???

Pat, the use L'Hopital Rule to prove the first problem. OR you can use Taylor expansion of e^x too.
Good-Luck

Anything divided by zero cannot be one, sanjays. Instead it goes to infinity.

Solution to the second question

de^x/dx = lim h-->0 (e^(x+h) - e^x)/h
= lim h--->0 (e^x.e^h - e^x)/h = lim h--->0 {e^x(e^h -1)/h}
=( e^x) lim h-->o(e^h -1)/h
By the first part, lim h--->0 (e^h -1)/h = 1
Therefore, de^x/dx =( e^x) lim h-->o(e^h -1)/h = e^x.1 = e^x

GOT IT??

In past 13 years, 13000+ Nepalese were murdered by Nepalese.

Question is: How many of them were killed on the order of Prachanda and Baburam??????

Hint: the answer is there in Prachanda's interview to Kantipur.

raja harischandra is right, but shoot...maile po bhulechu tailor expansion kasari banaune bhanerAAAA shOOT!!!!...need to review that 100 page chapter on series again!!!!!!!
Somebody up in the threat has divided by zero unknowingly. or KNOWINGLY?

AND BY NOW everyone thinks loote is an engineer. not sure if he is though cuz he came after and said "youre the fourth person who assumes stuff about me in sajha"

so be careful..naam matra loote ho yo bajjiyako mukh khub powerful cha.

hello everyone...thanks for trying to help.....
lotte bro ko proof ali chitta bujya thiyo tara tyo pani ali mildaina re kinaki....
we have to use, derivative of e^x=e^x to find that of ln x ....so tyo bhanda agadi tyo use garna ali paindaina re.... anyway thanks for trying .....and i have stopped bothering about that ......So u guys don't bother either.....

flip_flop Posted on 06-29-06 3:12 PM Reply
nything divided by zero cannot be one, sanjays. Instead it goes to infinity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVIDED - DID I EVER MENTION DIVIDE? please look up again I think I mentioned to the POWER


FLIP I will really FLIP U OVER