Skip to content
← All questions

Why do we distinguish between writing 'not exist' and '+infinity' for the same unbounded branch?

This distinction arises from different conventions regarding what constitutes a valid limit. Strictly speaking, a limit must be a finite real number; since the branch grows without bound, the finite limit 'does not exist'. However, extended notation allows us to write +∞+\infty to provide more information about the *direction* of the divergence, distinguishing it from oscillatory unboundedness or downward divergence.

Conditions

  • The function is unbounded near the target input.
  • Context specifies whether seeking a strict finite real limit or using extended infinite-limit notation.

Reasoning, step by step

  1. Acknowledge that standard definition requires limits to be real numbers.
  2. Observe that ∞\infty is not a real number, so the strict limit fails to exist.
  3. Use +∞+\infty as supplementary descriptive notation to capture the specific upward trend.
  4. Recognize that both statements refer to the same graphical behavior under different definitional frameworks.

Example

The video explicitly handles this by first noting the source writes 'not exist' because it seeks a finite real limit, then explaining that the upward divergence may also be described by positive-infinite-limit notation; the two statements use different conventions for the same branch.

Common misconceptions

  • Believing that 'not exist' and '+∞+\infty' are contradictory facts about the function.
  • Thinking that '+∞+\infty' proves the limit exists as a real number.

Watch the explanation

Connected concepts

Explore next

Related questions

Find a method

↗
Meet the concept

↗
Find a method

↗

Answers are generated from source material and independently checked. Consult the original video or creator if something is unclear.